        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 090129076-9092-01]
        RIN 0648-AX56
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish; Framework Adjustment 2

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to implement Framework Adjustment 2 (Framework 2) to the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils). Framework 2 would broaden the FMP stock status determination criteria for spiny dogfish, while maintaining objective and measurable criteria to identify when the stock is overfished or approaching an overfished condition. The framework action would also establish acceptable categories of peer review of new or revised stock status determination criteria for the Council to use in its specification-setting process for spiny dogfish. This action is necessary to ensure that changes or modification to the stock status determination criteria, constituting the best available, peer-reviewed scientific information, are accessible to the management process in a timely and efficient manner, consistent with National Standards 1 and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on April 2, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AX56, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov

          • Fax: 978-281-9135, Attn: Jamie Goen
          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Dogfish Framework Adjustment 2.”

          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 (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Copies of Framework Adjustment 2 are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. The framework document is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jamie Goen, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9220.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The current stock status determination criteria for spiny dogfish is found in the FMP. To modify or replace these stock status determination criteria, the Council must enact a framework adjustment or an amendment to the FMP.

        The regulations at § 648.230 outline the management processes for spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Stock assessment information is used in the management process that is used to derive annual catch limits (e.g., Total Allowable Landings (TAL)). Stock assessments for spiny dogfish undergo periodic formal scientific peer review as part of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's (NEFSC) Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) and Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) process. These and other periodic formal peer reviews may result in recommendations to revise or use different stock status determination criteria as different or new approaches are applied to previously existing data, or to new, previously unexamined data. Currently, these recommendations are incorporated into the management scheme through a framework adjustment or amendment to the FMP. Given the time necessary to develop FMP framework adjustments and amendments, it is likely that, should such new stock status determination criteria result from a formal SAW/SARC peer review, the new criteria would not be available for the Councils' use for at least 1 year.
        In addition, groups such as the Councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), academic institutions, and other interested parties have periodically contracted with outside parties or conducted in-house formal peer reviews of the stock status determination criteria. In such instances, it has not been clear how the results of these independently conducted peer reviews should be viewed by the Councils in regards to National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which specifies that management decisions shall be based upon the best scientific information available.
        In response, the Council has developed and submitted for review by the Secretary of Commerce, Framework 2 to the Spiny Dogfish FMP. This framework, if adopted, would enact the following actions, designed to improve the time frame in which peer reviewed information can be utilized in the management process, as well as providing guidance on peer review standards and how to move forward in the management process when peer review results are not clear. The principal actions proposed by Framework 2 are to:
        1. Redefine in general terms, while maintaining objective and measurable criteria, the stock status determination criteria for spiny dogfish;
        2. Define what constitutes an acceptable level of peer review; and
        3. Provide guidance on how the Council may engage its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), including cases when approved peer review processes fail to provide a consensus recommendation or clear guidance for management decisions.
        These changes, proposed in Framework 2, are discussed in detail in the following sections. This action is similar to Framework Adjustment 7 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP that was implemented in 2007.
        Redefined Stock Status Determination Criteria
        Framework 2 would redefine the stock status determination criteria for spiny dogfish in the FMP. The maximum fishing mortality rate (F) threshold is defined as FMSY; which is the fishing mortality rate associated with the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for spiny dogfish. The maximum fishing mortality rate threshold (Fmsy), or a reasonable proxy thereof, may be defined as a function of (but not limited to): Total stock biomass, spawning stock biomass, or total pup production; and may include males and/or females, or combinations and ratios thereof, that provide the best measure of productive capacity for spiny dogfish. Exceeding the established fishing mortality rate threshold constitutes overfishing.

        The minimum stock size threshold is defined as 1/2 of the biomass at MSY (Bmsy) (or a reasonable proxy thereof) as a function of productive capacity. The minimum stock size threshold may be defined as (but not limited to): Total stock biomass, spawning stock biomass, or total pup production; and may include males and/or females, or combinations and ratios thereof, that provide the best measure of productive capacity for spiny dogfish. The minimum stock size threshold is the level of productive capacity associated with the relevant 1/2 Bmsy level. Should the measure of productive capacity for the stock or stock complex fall below this minimum threshold, the stock or stock complex is considered overfished. The target for rebuilding is specified as Bmsy, under the same definition of productive capacity as specified for the minimum stock size threshold.

        Under Framework 2, the stock status determination criteria are proposed to be made more general by removing specific references to how maximum fishing mortality threshold, minimum stock size threshold, and biomass are calculated. By making the stock status determination criteria more general, the results of peer reviewed best available science could be more readily adopted through the specification-setting process. The Councils would still provide specific definitions for the stock status determination criteria in the specifications and management measures, future framework adjustments, and amendments, including, where necessary, information on changes to the definitions.
        Peer Review Standards
        While the NEFSC SAW/SARC process remains the primary process utilized in the Northeast Region to develop scientific stock assessment advice, including stock status determination criteria for federally managed species, Framework 2 proposes several additional scientific review bodies and processes that would constitute an acceptable peer review to develop scientific stock assessment advice for spiny dogfish stock status determination criteria. These periodic reviews outside the SAW/SARC process could be conducted by any of the following, as deemed appropriate by the managing authorities:
        • Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC), composed of both U.S. and Canadian scientists
        • MAFMC SSC Review
        • MAFMC Externally Contracted Reviews with Independent Experts (e.g., Center for Independent Experts- CIE)
        • NMFS Internally Conducted Review (e.g., Comprised of NMFS Scientific and Technical Experts from NMFS Science Centers or Regions)
        • NMFS Externally Contracted Review with Independent Experts (e.g., Center for Independent Experts-CIE)
        Guidance on Unclear Scientific Advice Resulting from Peer Review
        In many formal peer reviews, the terms of reference provided in advance of the review instruct the reviewers to formulate specific responses on the adequacy of information and to provide detailed advice on how that information may be used for fishery management purposes. As such, most stock assessment peer reviews result in clear recommendations on stock status determination criteria for use in the management of fish stocks. However, there are occasional peer review results where panelists disagree and no consensus recommendation is made regarding the information. The terms of reference may not be followed and no recommendations for the suitability of the information for management purposes may be made. In such instances, it is unclear what then constitutes the best available information for management use.
        Framework 2 proposes that, when clear consensus recommendations are made by any of the acceptable peer review groups, the information is considered the best available and may be utilized by the Council in the management process for spiny dogfish. Similarly, when the consensus results of a peer review are to reject proposed changes to the stock assessment methods or the stock status determination criteria, Framework 2 proposes that the previous information on record would still continue to constitute the best available information and should be used in the management process.
        When peer review recommendations do not result in consensus, are unclear, or do not make recommendations on how the information is to be used in the management process, Framework 2 proposes that the Councils engage their SSCs or a subset of their SSCs with appropriate stock assessment expertise, to review the information provided by the peer review group. The SSC would then seek to clarify the information and provide advice to the Councils to either modify, change, or retain the existing stock status determination definitions as the best available information for use in the development of specifications and management measures.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and has preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Regional Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is an administrative framework adjustment to the FMP and is, therefore, categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or equivalent document under the National Environmental Policy Act.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule deals only with how the best available, peer-reviewed scientific information can be more quickly and efficiently incorporated into the Councils' specification-setting process for spiny dogfish. This is achieved by broadening the descriptions of the stock status determination criteria in the FMP, so updated and peer-reviewed information can be more readily adopted for use in the management process. The proposed change is to how the stock status determination criteria are defined; there is no change to the existing determination criteria. Additionally, the Framework identifies acceptable levels of peer review that must be satisfied before new or revised information is accepted as the best available science. These are administrative changes to the FMP that serve to improve the quality of data used in management decisions, consistent with National Standards 1 and 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As such, the rule will not have significant direct or indirect economic impacts on small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

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

          Dated: February 25, 2009.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-4480 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 080201E]
        RIN 0648-AM40
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; License Limitation Program for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 67 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI).  Amendment 67 is necessary to stabilize the fully utilized fixed gear Pacific cod fishery in the BSAI.  This will be accomplished by issuing endorsements for exclusive access to longtime participants.  The intended effect of Amendment 67 is to conserve and manage the Pacific cod resources in the BSAI in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  NMFS is requesting comments from the public on Amendment 67, copies of which may be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 67 must be submitted by October 15, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on proposed Amendment 67 should be submitted to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK,  99802, Attn:  Lori Gravel, or delivered to room 401 of the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Copies of Amendment 67 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for Amendment 67 are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501; telephone 907-271-2809.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          John Lepore, 907-586-7228 or e-mail at john.lepore@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any fishery management plan or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, after receiving a fishery management plan or plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the fishery management plan or plan amendment is available for public review and comment.  This action constitutes such notice for Amendment 67 to the BSAI FMP.  NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve Amendment 67.
        Background
        The Council recommended, and NMFS approved, the License Limitation Program (LLP) to address concerns of excess capital and capacity in the groundfish and crab fisheries off Alaska.  Fishing under the LLP began on January 1, 2000.  More information on the specifics of the LLP and the problems it was designed to resolve can be found in the final rule implementing the LLP (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998).

        The LLP, as implemented on January 1, 2000, was always considered by the Council and NMFS as an initial stage in a multi-staged process designed to reduce capacity and capital in the affected fisheries.  The LLP requires that a person hold a license to participate in the groundfish fishery.  Under the original provisions of the LLP, a groundfish license was specific as to the area in which a person could participate, but not as to the gear or species.  The Council anticipated that specific fisheries within the LLP complex of fisheries would need further management controls to respond to concerns of overutilization.  One such example is the fixed gear Pacific cod fisheries in the BSAI.
        In 1996, the Council recommended Amendment 46 to the BSAI FMP.  Amendment 46 allocated the total allowable catch (TAC) for BSAI Pacific cod among participants who used jig gear (2 percent), trawl gear (47 percent), and fixed gear (51 percent).  Amendment 46 further split the trawl gear allocation equally between catcher vessels and catcher/processor vessels.  Amendment 46 was approved by NMFS, and implemented in January 1997 (61 FR 59029, November 20, 1996).
        Although Amendment 46 initiated a process to address issues regarding the allocation of BSAI Pacific cod fisheries among various participants, it did not address all issues.  Issues that were not increased included prices for Pacific cod, reduced crab guideline harvest levels, shortened or cancelled crab seasons due to low resource abundance, and intensified use of Pacific cod resources by participants using pot gear.
        In response to these issues, the Council recommended Amendment 64.  Amendment 64, approved by NMFS and implemented by final rule in September 2000 (65 FR 51553, August 24, 2000), further divided the 51 percent of the TAC for BSAI Pacific cod allocated to fixed gear as follows: Hook-and-line catcher/processor vessels, 80 percent; hook-and-line catcher vessels, 0.3 percent; pot gear vessel, 18.3 percent; and hook-and-line or pot catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 meters (m))(length overall (LOA), 1.4 percent.  Amendment 64 also contained specific provisions for the accounting of directed fishing allowances and the transfer of unharvested amounts of these allowances.
        Both Amendments 46 and 64 established allocations for different gear sectors of the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries.  However, neither amendment prevented movement among those sectors or the entrance of new participants who held a groundfish license  for the BSAI into BSAI Pacific cod fisheries.

        In April 1999, the Council initiated an analysis to add Pacific cod endorsements to BSAI groundfish licenses to address the concern of new participants and movement among fixed gear sectors.  This analysis reviewed the status of Pacific cod stocks and catch, the history of Pacific cod allocations, and the economic, social, and environmental impacts of various limited access alternatives.  A copy of this analysis can be obtained for further review (see ADDRESSES).
        In April 2000, the Council recommended its preferred alternative for the BSAI Pacific cod fixed gear fisheries (Amendment 67).  Amendment 67 is currently being reviewed by NMFS for approval.
        Amendment 67
        As explained, the BSAI fixed gear Pacific cod fisheries are fully utilized; therefore, any new participant increases the competition for an already fully utilized resource.  Although new participants are often discouraged from entering a fishery that is already fully utilized, the current economics of the Pacific cod fishery and the downturn in the crab fisheries have provided incentives for new participants to enter the BSAI Pacific cod fixed gear fishery.
        The Council reviewed various alternatives to limit entry into the BSAI Pacific cod fixed gear fisheries.  These alternatives were designed to prevent a person who holds a groundfish license, but who has not participated in the BSAI fixed gear Pacific cod fisheries in the past, or who has not participated at a level that could constitute significant dependence on those fisheries, from participating in those fisheries in the future.
        After receiving public testimony concerning this action, the Council recommended requiring a Pacific cod endorsement to harvest Pacific cod in the BSAI directed fishery with fixed gear.  A Pacific cod endorsement would also be required to harvest Pacific cod in the commercial bait fishery.  Eligibility for a Pacific cod endorsement would be based on past participation in the fishery.  Four different endorsements would be available, depending on the fixed gear used to harvest the Pacific cod (longline or pot), and whether or not the Pacific cod was processed on board the harvesting vessel (catcher vessel or catcher/processor vessel).
        The Council recommended that the years 1995 through 1999 be used as past participation for Pacific cod endorsements, except for hook-and-line catcher processors for which the qualifying years would be 1996, 1997, 1998, or 1999.  The Council also recommended minimum landing amounts that had to be achieved in those years to qualify for a specific Pacific cod endorsement.  Properly documented harvests of Pacific cod, including commercial bait landings, would count toward the landing requirements for a Pacific cod endorsement.  A Pacific cod endorsement would not be required to harvest Pacific cod for personal use bait.
        The Council recommended several exemptions to the Pacific cod endorsement requirement.  A license holder deploying a catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA to conduct directed fishing for BSAI Pacific cod with fixed gear does not need a Pacific cod endorsement on his or her groundfish license.  The Council decided to exempt this class of vessels because of concern over the ability of small entities to compete under the current fishery management regime.  Also, exemptions to the LLP apply to the Pacific cod endorsement.  That means that a vessel that is exempt from the LLP does not need a groundfish license with a Pacific cod endorsement aboard to conduct directed fishing for BSAI Pacific cod with fixed gear.  These exemptions include: (1) less than 32 ft (9.75 m)LOA general exemption to the LLP; and (2) the less than 60 ft (18.3 m)LOA jig vessel exemption to the LLP.  Specific information concerning these exemptions can be found at 50 CFR 679.4 (k)(2).
        The Council recommended that a person be allowed to combine catch histories only when the vessel that was used as the basis of eligibility for the original groundfish license sank and was replaced with another vessel.  The Council decided not to allow any other combining of catch histories because of the potential of increasing participation in an already fully utilized resource.  The Council determined that allowing for the combining of catch histories in the limited circumstances of sunken vessels would not greatly increase the number of participants.  However, it would provide equitable consideration to those persons who would have participated if their vessels had not sunk.

        Another provision recommended by the Council concerns unavoidable circumstances.  This hardship provision is similar to one provided for general LLP eligibility and would enable a person to receive a Pacific cod endorsement even though that person would not qualify for an endorsement based on landings.  Please refer to proposed Amendment 67 and the analysis for Amendment 67 for further details concerning eligibility requirements, exemptions, and other provisions (see ADDRESSES).

        Public comments are being solicited on Amendment 67 through the end of the comment period specified in this notice.  A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 67 may be published in the Federal Register for public comment following evaluation by NMFS under Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures.  All comments received by the end of the comment period specified in this notice, whether specifically directed to Amendment 67 or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 67.

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

          Dated:   August 8, 2001.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,  National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-20436 Filed 8-14-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S