Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Scientific and Statistical Committees; Peer Review; National Standard Guidelines, 54132-54133 [E8-21837]
Download as PDF
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
54132
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
is destroyed, recolonization would be
impossible and the population
supported by that breeding pond would
be extirpated.
Habitat loss on private lands is an
imminent threat that is compounded by
a variety of other factors. Fire
suppression on private lands occupied
by the frosted flatwoods salamander
represents one of the biggest threats to
the species’ habitat and the continued
existence of the species on these sites.
However, 62 percent of frosted
flatwoods salamander populations have
an improved chance of surviving
demographic and environmental
stochasticity given that the distribution
of breeding sites occurs within an adult
salamander’s dispersal distance.
We believe that, when combining the
effects of historical, current, and
projected habitat loss and degradation,
historical and ongoing drought, and the
exacerbating effects of disease,
predation, small population size, and
isolation, the frosted flatwoods
salamander continues to be likely to
become an endangered species
throughout all of its range within the
foreseeable future. We believe these
threats, particularly the threats to
populations resulting from habitat
degradation and fragmentation, small
population size, and drought, are
current and are projected to continue
into the future. We have determined
that these threats are operating on the
species and its habitat with a moderate
degree of magnitude throughout most of
its range and with a moderate degree of
severity, as discussed above.
Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, we have
determined that the preferred action is
for the frosted flatwoods salamander to
retain its status as a threatened species
under the Act. Without the protection of
the Act, significant management of
threats would likely occur on public
lands; however, there is still substantial
risk of loss of ponds to drought and
disease and, on private lands, a variety
of potential threats (for example,
introduction of fish, predation,
pesticides), and development. As
discussed previously, declines resulting
from drought can occur within only a
few years. In the case of the frosted
flatwoods salamander, 38 percent of
populations have only one breeding
pond. If the habitat at that site is
destroyed, recolonization would be
impossible and the population
supported by that breeding pond would
be extirpated. This could occur within
a few years given recurring drought
conditions and existing threats. While
not in immediate danger of extinction,
the frosted flatwoods salamander is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
likely to become an endangered species
in the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range if the
present trends that negatively affect the
species, and its limited and restricted
habitat, continue. Furthermore, because
these threats to the species are of
comparable magnitude and severity
across all of the species’ range, we have
determined that an analysis of whether
a specific portion of the range might
require a different listing status is not
warranted at this time.
Available Conservation Measures
For additional information on
available conservation measures, please
refer to the proposed rule published in
the Federal Register on August 13, 2008
(73 FR 47258).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this document is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor Ray
Aycock, Mississippi Field Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this package
are the staff of the Mississippi Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 5, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. E8–21878 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. 0808041047–81182–01]
RIN 0648–AW62
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Scientific and Statistical Committees;
Peer Review; National Standard
Guidelines
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is
considering, and is seeking public
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comment on proposed rulemaking to
revise National Standard 2 (NS2)
guidelines regarding use of best
scientific information available, in light
of reauthorization of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act). NMFS is considering modifying
the language describing the content and
purpose of the Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report or
related documents, and adding language
regarding peer review processes, the
role of the scientific and statistical
committees (SSCs) of the Regional
Fishery Management Councils
(Councils), and the relationship between
peer reviews and SSCs.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before 5 p.m., local time,
December 17, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by 0648–AW62, by any one of
the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: Attn: William Michaels 301–
713–1875.
• Mail: William Michaels, NOAA
Fisheries Service, Office of Science and
Technology, 1315 East-West Highway,
F/ST4, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill
Michaels, 301–713–2363 x136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 12, 2007, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA)
was signed into law. The MSRA
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act included provisions to improve the
use of science in decision-making,
provide for a stronger role for Councils’
SSCs and enhance peer review
processes.
Currently, the NS2 guidelines address
the use of best scientific information
available to support fishery management
actions, prescribe the content and
purpose of SAFE reports or similar
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
documents, and assign responsibility for
the preparation and review of SAFE
reports to the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary). SAFE reports are intended
to provide the Councils with a summary
of current scientific information
available to make management
decisions and are intended to contain
information upon which Councils are to
base harvest specifications, including
annual harvest levels from each stock.
At this time, NS2 does not specifically
mention that the SAFE should include
SSC recommendations for acceptable
biological catch from either the SSC or
peer review process (established under
Section 302(g)(1)(E) of the MagnusonStevens Act). SSC recommendations for
acceptable biological catch are the basis
upon which each Council is to set
annual catch limits (ACLs), and ACLs
are not to exceed these fishing level
recommendations per Section 302(h)(6)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is
considering, and is seeking public
comment on how to revise the
discussion of SAFE reports in the NS2
to include the scientific
recommendations that are to be
provided by the SSCs under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as reauthorized.
NMFS is inviting comment on the
extent to which the NS2 guidelines
should provide guidance as to what
constitutes ‘‘best scientific information
available.’’ In 2004, the National
Research Council (NRC) of the National
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
Academies was charged with examining
the application of the term ‘‘best
scientific information available’’ as the
basis for fishery conservation and
management measures required under
NS2 and recommended approaches for
a more uniform application of the
standard within the context of current
and future fisheries management efforts.
The NRC recommendations can be
found in their publication, ‘‘Improving
the Use of the Best Scientific
Information Available’ Standard in
Fisheries Management’’ (NRC
2004,https://books.nap.edu/
openbook.php). Although NMFS has
informally adopted many of the NRC
recommendations, this advanced notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is an
opportunity to solicit and incorporate
recommendations into the NS2
guidance.
Section 302(g)(1)(E) of the MagnusonStevens Act provides that ‘‘(T)he
Secretary and each Council may
establish a peer review process for that
Council for scientific information used
to advise the Council about the
conservation and management of the
fishery. The review process, which may
include existing committees or panels,
is deemed to satisfy the requirements of
the guidelines issued pursuant to
section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal year 2001,’’ otherwise known as
the Information Quality Act. At present,
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54133
none of the 10 national standards, or
national standard guidelines, directly
discuss or provide guidance on peer
review processes.
NMFS is considering expanding NS2
to include specific language regarding
peer review processes. NS2 appears to
be the logical national standard to
provide further guidance regarding peer
reviews, since a peer review process is
one method for ensuring that the best
scientific information available is
utilized in Council decisions. This
language may include minimum criteria
for peer review processes, based in part
on the public comments received.
Furthermore, there may be a need to
clarify the relationship between the peer
review processes that may be
established by the Secretary and each
Council and the role of the SSC of that
´
Council vis-a-vis the peer review
process.
Finally, NMFS seeks comments from
the public on other issues or
clarifications to NS2 that the public
would like to see addressed in this
rulemaking.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1851.
Dated: September 15, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8–21837 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54132-54133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21837]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. 0808041047-81182-01]
RIN 0648-AW62
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Scientific and Statistical
Committees; Peer Review; National Standard Guidelines
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is considering, and is seeking public
comment on proposed rulemaking to revise National Standard 2 (NS2)
guidelines regarding use of best scientific information available, in
light of reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS is considering
modifying the language describing the content and purpose of the Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report or related documents,
and adding language regarding peer review processes, the role of the
scientific and statistical committees (SSCs) of the Regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils), and the relationship between peer
reviews and SSCs.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local
time, December 17, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW62, by any one
of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
Fax: Attn: William Michaels 301-713-1875.
Mail: William Michaels, NOAA Fisheries Service, Office of
Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, F/ST4, Silver Spring,
MD 20910.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Michaels, 301-713-2363 x136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 12, 2007, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA)
was signed into law. The MSRA amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
included provisions to improve the use of science in decision-making,
provide for a stronger role for Councils' SSCs and enhance peer review
processes.
Currently, the NS2 guidelines address the use of best scientific
information available to support fishery management actions, prescribe
the content and purpose of SAFE reports or similar
[[Page 54133]]
documents, and assign responsibility for the preparation and review of
SAFE reports to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). SAFE reports are
intended to provide the Councils with a summary of current scientific
information available to make management decisions and are intended to
contain information upon which Councils are to base harvest
specifications, including annual harvest levels from each stock. At
this time, NS2 does not specifically mention that the SAFE should
include SSC recommendations for acceptable biological catch from either
the SSC or peer review process (established under Section 302(g)(1)(E)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act). SSC recommendations for acceptable
biological catch are the basis upon which each Council is to set annual
catch limits (ACLs), and ACLs are not to exceed these fishing level
recommendations per Section 302(h)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS
is considering, and is seeking public comment on how to revise the
discussion of SAFE reports in the NS2 to include the scientific
recommendations that are to be provided by the SSCs under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, as reauthorized.
NMFS is inviting comment on the extent to which the NS2 guidelines
should provide guidance as to what constitutes ``best scientific
information available.'' In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC)
of the National Academies was charged with examining the application of
the term ``best scientific information available'' as the basis for
fishery conservation and management measures required under NS2 and
recommended approaches for a more uniform application of the standard
within the context of current and future fisheries management efforts.
The NRC recommendations can be found in their publication, ``Improving
the Use of the Best Scientific Information Available' Standard in
Fisheries Management'' (NRC 2004,https://books.nap.edu/openbook.php).
Although NMFS has informally adopted many of the NRC recommendations,
this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is an opportunity to
solicit and incorporate recommendations into the NS2 guidance.
Section 302(g)(1)(E) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that
``(T)he Secretary and each Council may establish a peer review process
for that Council for scientific information used to advise the Council
about the conservation and management of the fishery. The review
process, which may include existing committees or panels, is deemed to
satisfy the requirements of the guidelines issued pursuant to section
515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal year 2001,'' otherwise known as the Information Quality Act. At
present, none of the 10 national standards, or national standard
guidelines, directly discuss or provide guidance on peer review
processes.
NMFS is considering expanding NS2 to include specific language
regarding peer review processes. NS2 appears to be the logical national
standard to provide further guidance regarding peer reviews, since a
peer review process is one method for ensuring that the best scientific
information available is utilized in Council decisions. This language
may include minimum criteria for peer review processes, based in part
on the public comments received. Furthermore, there may be a need to
clarify the relationship between the peer review processes that may be
established by the Secretary and each Council and the role of the SSC
of that Council vis-[aacute]-vis the peer review process.
Finally, NMFS seeks comments from the public on other issues or
clarifications to NS2 that the public would like to see addressed in
this rulemaking.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1851.
Dated: September 15, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-21837 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S