[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54561-54564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19522]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE668


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard 2--Scientific 
Information; Regional Peer Review Processes

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

ACTION: Notice of regional peer review processes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is providing notice of the regional peer review processes 
established pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA). This notice provides a summary of each regional 
peer review process which has been jointly established by the Secretary 
and the relevant regional fishery management council (Council) for 
review of scientific information used to advise the Council about the 
conservation and management of fisheries. It also directs the public to 
a Web page where detailed guidelines can be found for each peer review 
process. NMFS and the Councils may update those guidelines as 
necessary.

DATES: Effective August 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Michaels by phone 301-427-
8155, or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 301(a)(2) of the MSA specifies that 
fishery conservation and management measures shall be based upon the 
best scientific information available. 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2). Section 
302(g)(1)(E) of the MSA provides that the 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. 16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(E). Section 301(b) of 
the MSA states that the Secretary [of Commerce] shall establish 
advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), 
based on national standards, to assist in the development of fishery 
management plans. 16 U.S.C. 1851(b). These national standards include 
National Standard 2 (NS2), which provides guidance on the best 
scientific information available (BSIA) standard, including guidance on 
standards for establishing a peer review process per MSA section 
302(g)(1)(E). The NS2 guidelines appear at 50 CFR 600.315.
    The decision to establish a 302(g)(1)(E) peer review process is a 
joint decision made by the Secretary and a Council. If the Secretary 
and a Council establish such a process, it will be deemed to satisfy 
the requirements of the Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 3516), 
including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005). 16 
U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(E). Under the NS2 guidelines, the Secretary will 
announce the establishment of a peer review process under MSA 
302(g)(1)(E), which may include existing committees or panels, in the 
Federal Register. See 50 CFR 600.315(b)(4). This notice fulfills that 
requirement and is an affirmation that the existing regional peer 
review processes jointly commissioned by the Secretary and Council are 
consistent with widely accepted peer review standards and the NS2 
guidelines, including requirements for public transparency.
    The NS2 guidelines provide guidance and standards to establish a 
302(g)(1)(E) review process and adopts many of the OMB Peer Review 
Bulletin standards. See 50 CFR 600.315(b). These standards emphasize 
the importance of expert qualifications; balance in knowledge and 
perspectives; lack of conflicts of interest; independence from the work 
being reviewed; and transparency of the peer review process. The NS2 
guidelines specify that the degree of independence for a peer review 
may vary depending of the novelty, controversy, and complexity of the 
scientific information being reviewed. For reviews requiring a high 
degree of independence, the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) has 
often been used as an independent selection process for obtaining 
highly qualified experts to participate on review panels. Further 
information on CIE and NS2 is available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/science-quality-assurance/index. The NS2 
guidelines also provide guidance on participation in the peer review 
process by members of the Council's Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC). This notice provides links to publicly available Web 
pages that set forth detailed guidelines for each 302(g)(1)(E) peer 
review process. The guidelines may be updated as necessary and 
appropriate to improve the review processes. Although not within the 
scope of this notice, there are other important processes, including 
peer review, that are used by NMFS to inform fishery conservation and 
management that are not jointly established by the Secretary and 
Council pursuant to section 302(g)(1)(E), such as peer reviews 
pertaining to scientific information supporting international fisheries 
management agreements.
    Description of Regional Peer Review Processes. Five regional peer 
review processes have been established jointly by the Secretary and 
Councils pursuant to MSA section 302(g)(1)(E); an overview of each is 
provided below.

[[Page 54562]]

(1) Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review Committee (SAW/
SARC)

    (i) Scope and objective. The Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock 
Assessment Review Committee (SAW/SARC) process has been jointly 
established by the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 
NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO), New England 
Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council (MAFMC), and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 
(ASMFC) to conduct the peer review of scientific stock assessment 
information used for fishery management in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic regions.
    (ii) Background. The Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) is a formal 
scientific peer-review process for evaluating and presenting stock 
assessment results to managers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 
regions. The SAW protocol is used to prepare and review assessments for 
fish and invertebrate stocks in the offshore U.S. waters of the 
northwest Atlantic Ocean. Assessments are prepared by SAW working 
groups (federally led assessments) or ASMFC technical assessment 
committees (state led assessments) and peer reviewed by an independent 
panel of stock assessment experts called the Stock Assessment Review 
Committee (SARC) to determine the adequacy of benchmark stock 
assessments for providing a scientific basis for fisheries management. 
SARC panels are typically composed of a chair, who is selected from the 
New England or Mid-Atlantic Council's SSC, and experts selected by the 
CIE. Published SAW assessment reports reflect the written decisions and 
conclusions of the SARC panel regarding each of the assessment Terms of 
Reference (ToR). The SAW/SARC process is overseen by the Northeast 
Region Coordinating Council (NRCC). The NRCC includes high level 
representatives from the NEFSC, GARFO, MAFMC, NEFMC, and ASMFC. The 
NEFSC Science and Research Director and the NRCC are directly involved 
with assessment scheduling. Peer reviewed assessment results and 
reports from the SARC review panel are provided to the relevant 
Council's Technical Teams, and the SSC for use in making fishing level 
recommendations to the Councils.
    (iii) Terms of reference. Peer reviewer selection takes into 
consideration qualifications of experts, balance of perspective, 
conflict of interest, and independence. ToRs for stock assessments are 
developed by the NEFSC in consultation with NRCC members, and with 
final approval by the NRCC. Benchmark stock assessments undergo a 
higher degree of peer review than stock assessment updates and 
operational stock assessments. In benchmark assessments, it is 
acceptable to incorporate new data sources and assessment models and 
assumptions. Assessment updates and operational stock assessments are 
more limited in this respect. They generally incorporate additional 
years of data into the previously accepted benchmark assessment model, 
with few modifications to the model or model assumptions.
    (iv) Compliance with National Standard 2. The SAW/SARC process for 
conducting peer review of scientific information for fishery management 
is fully compliant with the NS2 guidelines.
    (v) Transparency. SAW working group meetings, as well as the SARC 
peer review meetings, are open to the public. Dates and locations of 
these meetings are posted on a public NEFSC Web page well in advance, 
and peer review meetings are also announced in the Federal Register, 
and at public Council meetings. SAW working papers are made available 
on a public NEFSC Web page before, during, and after the peer review. 
Names of reviewers are posted online and paper copies of reports are 
available during peer reviews. A public comment period is scheduled on 
the SARC review meeting agenda. When the peer review is completed, 
published proceedings and reviewer reports are posted on public NEFSC 
Web pages (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/ and http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/) and public presentations are given to the 
Councils. A detailed description of the SAW/SARC peer review process is 
available to the public at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/.

(2) Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR)

    (i) Scope and objective. The Southeast Data, Assessment and Review 
(SEDAR) process has been jointly established by the NMFS Southeast 
Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), NMFS Southeast Regional Office 
(SERO), Southeast Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), and Caribbean Fishery 
Management Council (CFMC) to conduct the peer review of scientific 
information used for fishery management in the U.S. Southeast Atlantic, 
Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean regions.
    (ii) Background. The SEDAR is overseen by the SEDAR Steering 
Committee, comprised of executive directors and chairs of the GMFMC, 
CFMC and SAFMC; executive directors of the Atlantic and Gulf States 
Marine Fisheries Commissions; the SERO Administrator; and chaired by 
the director of the SEFSC. SEDAR seeks improvements in the quantity and 
scientific quality of stock assessments to address existing and 
emerging fishery management issues. SEDAR emphasizes transparency in 
the assessment review process, and a rigorous and independent 
scientific review of completed stock assessments. A SEDAR review is 
organized as three workshops: (1) A data workshop where datasets are 
documented, analyzed, and reviewed and data for conducting assessment 
analyses are compiled; (2) an assessment workshop where quantitative 
population analyses are developed and refined and population parameters 
are estimated; and (3) a review workshop where a panel of independent 
experts reviews the data and assessment and advises on whether the 
assessment is of sufficient quality for use in fisheries management.
    (iii) Terms of reference. The terms of reference for conducting a 
peer review within the SEDAR process are established before the peer 
review by the SEFSC with the SAFMC, GMFMC, or CFMC and their SSCs.
    (iv) Compliance with National Standard 2. The SEDAR process for 
conducting peer review of scientific information for fishery management 
is fully compliant with the NS2 guidelines.
    (v) Transparency. All SEDAR workshops are open to the public. 
Public testimony is accepted in accordance with the Council Statement 
of Organization Practices and Procedures (SOPP). Workshop times and 
locations are announced in advance through the Federal Register. All 
SEDAR reports are posted on the SEDAR Web site and are hyperlinked to 
the respective Council(s) and the NMFS SERO and SEFSC Web sites. The 
SEDAR Web page is at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/. A detailed 
description of the SEDAR peer review process is publicly available at: 
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/D2c_RW%20panelist%20instructions.pdf?id=DOCUMENT.

(3) Stock Assessment Review (STAR)

    (i) Scope and objective. The Stock Assessment Review (STAR) process 
has been jointly established by the Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(PFMC), NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science

[[Page 54563]]

Center (SWFSC), NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), and 
NMFS West Coast Region (WCR) to conduct the peer review of scientific 
information used for fishery management of Coastal Pelagic Species and 
Pacific Coast Groundfish in the Pacific region.
    (ii) Background. The STAR peer review process is primarily overseen 
by the PFMC's SSC and conducted in collaboration with the NWFSC and 
SWFSC. It is a transparent, rigorous and independent scientific peer 
review process designed to evaluate the technical merits of benchmark 
stock assessments and related scientific information. The STAR process 
allows the Council to make timely use of new fishery and survey data, 
ensure the stock assessments represent the best information for fishery 
management decisions and provide opportunity for public comment. STAR 
Panels are held early in the management process to ensure their 
recommendations are readily available for fishery management decision-
making. The relevant SSC subcommittees typically review updated and 
data-moderate assessments, although STAR panels may be used as needed.
    (iii) Terms of reference. The ToR for the Groundfish and Coastal 
Pelagic Species Stock Assessment and Stock Assessment Review Process is 
updated by the PFMC in partnership with NMFS. The ToR describes the 
STAR process and includes an overview of the stock assessment 
prioritization process, STAR Panel goals and objectives, roles and 
responsibilities of STAR participants, as well as a calendar of events 
with a list of deliverables for final approval by the Council. The ToR 
is publicly available on the PFMC's Web site.
    (iv) Compliance with National Standard 2. The STAR process for 
conducting peer review of scientific information for fishery management 
is fully compliant with the NS2 guidelines.
    (v) Transparency. STAR panel review meetings are open to the public 
and background materials are publicly available. Public testimony is 
accepted in accordance with the PFMC's Statement of Organization 
Practices and Procedures (SOPP). STAR Panel meeting times and locations 
are announced in advance through the Federal Register. STAR panel 
review reports are posted on the Council's Web site. More detailed 
information about the STAR process can be found on the Council's Web 
site at: http://www.pcouncil.org and its ToRs can be found at http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Stock_Assessment_ToR_2013-14_Final.pdf.

(4) North Pacific Stock Assessment Review

    (i) Scope and objective. The North Pacific Stock Assessment Review 
(NPSAR) process has been jointly established by the NMFS Alaska 
Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), NMFS Alaska Regional Fisheries Office 
(AKRO), and North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) to conduct 
the peer review of scientific information used for fishery management 
in the North Pacific region. The NPFMC's SSC reviews are the main 
scientific analyses that come before the Council for action, including 
stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) documents. The NPFMC's 
SSC has a set of guidelines that it uses specifically when reviewing 
SAFE documents.
    (ii) Background. The AFSC is responsible for stock assessments for 
about 25 species or species groups listed in the groundfish fishery 
management plan (FMP) for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and approximately 25 
species or species groups in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands FMP. The 
State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) has responsibility 
for one groundfish stock assessment in the GOA FMP and all assessment 
responsibility for Scallops. The AFSC and ADFG share assessment 
responsibilities for the 10 species in the Bering Sea crab FMP. 
Scientific recommendations for these living marine resources are 
provided by the NPFMC with various management authorities delegated to 
the State of Alaska for crab and scallop fisheries. The SAFE report is 
compiled by the Plan Teams (which are scientific review bodies specific 
to each FMP) with contributions that include individual stock 
assessment, economic, and ecosystem chapters from AFSC and ADFG. The 
SAFE is disseminated by the NPFMC and describes the condition and 
current status of these resources in addition to information that 
summarizes the ecosystem and economic status. The stock assessment, 
economic, and ecosystem chapters are subject to internal review before 
dissemination to the FMP Plan Teams and the Council's SSC. The 
information is provided to the NPFMC and ADFG to be used as the basis 
of their management decisions, which are subsequently approved by NMFS.
    The stock assessment process begins with an annual memo from the 
AFSC stock assessment supervisors to staff outlining the dates for 
completion of the stock assessment chapters for internal review and the 
list of internal reviewers for each assessment. Stock assessments 
authored by ADFG follow a similar process. After review and revision, 
the draft stock assessment chapters are released for pre-dissemination 
review by the NPFMC Plan Team. The Plan Teams review stock assessments 
and associated ecosystem and economic appendices, compile the SAFE 
reports and make recommendations to the SSC. The SSC reviews the SAFEs 
and the Plan Team recommendations and sets the fishing level 
recommendations for each stock. The members of the NPFMC SSC represent 
broad areas of scientific expertise to encompass the full range of 
expertise required to review analyses that come to the Council to aid 
in decision-making. SSC members are nominated by individuals or 
agencies and are appointed and re-appointed annually by the NPFMC. 
Review assignments are made by the SSC chair to ensure that members are 
not assigned to review work products of individuals in their chain of 
command. In addition to the normal schedule of assessment updates and 
reviews, a separate review schedule involving the CIE is maintained, 
with the goal of obtaining a CIE review of all stock assessments once 
every five years.
    (iii) Terms of reference. The ToRs for conducting a peer review 
within the NPSAR process is established before the peer review by the 
AFSC in conjunction with the NPFMC.
    (iv) Compliance with National Standard 2. The NPSAR process for 
conducting peer review of scientific information for fishery management 
is fully compliant with the NS2 guidelines.
    (v) Transparency. SAFE documents are made available to the Plan 
Team two weeks prior to the Plan Team meeting in which they are to be 
reviewed. The public is also given public access to these documents and 
are allowed to attend Plan Team and SSC meetings. Notification of Plan 
Team meetings is provided in the Federal Register. Similarly, all 
documents reviewed by the SSC are made available to the public. This 
includes SAFE documents and Plan Team reports provided to the SSC in 
advance of the meeting in which the SSC makes ABC/OFL recommendations. 
The SSC publicly presents the findings of its report to the NPFMC at 
its meeting. When the SSC is making ABC/OFL recommendations for 
groundfish, the SSC report also characterizes the nature of any public 
testimony provided to the SSC at its meeting. The final SAFE is also 
published on the NPFMC Web page. More detailed information for the 
North

[[Page 54564]]

Pacific Stock Assessment Review process is publicly available at: 
http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/resources/SAFE/AFSCsafeReviewProcess.pdf.

(5) Western Pacific Stock Assessment Review (WPSAR)

    (i) Scope and objective. The Western Pacific Stock Assessment 
Review (WPSAR) process has been jointly established by the NMFS Pacific 
Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), NMFS Pacific Islands Regional 
Fisheries Office (PIRO), and Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 
(WPFMC) to conduct the peer review of scientific information used for 
fishery management in the Pacific Islands Region.
    (ii) Background. The WPSAR process was established to improve the 
quality and reliability of stock assessments for fishery resources in 
the Pacific Islands region. The process provides for rigorous and 
independent scientific review of stock assessments, and encourages 
constituent/stakeholder participation in stock assessment reviews. A 
five-year planning horizon is adopted to facilitate the timely 
execution of critical data collection activities, population dynamics 
model development, and stock evaluation exercises. The WPFMC, PIFSC and 
PIRO share the fiscal and logistical responsibilities of the WPSAR 
process. The WPFMC sponsors the review process, and PIFSC, PIRO and 
WPFMC staff coordinate and facilitate the review process in the 
Coordinating Committee. Specifically, the Coordinating Committee 
consults with the WPSAR Steering Committee, which is comprised of 
WPFMC, PIFSC, PIRO leadership, to develop the WPSAR schedule, prepare 
terms of reference, convene the review panels, and any other duties 
deemed pertinent by the Steering Committee. The WPSAR process adopts a 
three tier approach for the review and acceptance of stock assessment 
research products. The tiers differ in form, timing, scope, and panel 
membership, commensurate with the novelty and complexity of the 
information under review. Under Tier 1, CIE reviewers conduct 
independent peer reviews of new stock assessment methodologies and, in 
special circumstances, international stock assessments in accordance 
with the specified terms of reference. The application of new 
methodologies and benchmark assessments fall under Tier 2 which 
utilizes panel independent subject matter experts. Tier 3 is used for 
assessment updates, where only new data are added to an existing and 
approved assessment.
    The Coordinating Committee, in consultation with the WPSAR Steering 
Committee, identifies and selects expert panel members. The selected 
panel reviews the products in accordance with the associated terms of 
reference. A standing member of the Council's SSC will chair each WPSAR 
Tier 2 Review Panel and provide a summary report. Each individual 
reviewer produces and provides a report regarding their unique 
findings.
    (iii) Terms of reference. The terms of reference are developed 
before each review, and identify the specific assessment parameters to 
be addressed during that review.
    (iv) Compliance with National Standard 2. The WPSAR process for 
conducting peer review of scientific information for fishery management 
is fully compliant with the NS2 guidelines.
    Tier 1 reviews will be conducted by the CIE, in accordance with CIE 
protocols (http://ciereviews.org/). For Tier 2 reviews, the panel will 
consist of three to five experts, the exact size determined by the 
WPSAR Coordinators and approved by the Steering Committee. The Tier 2 
Review's Chair will be a standing member of the Council's SSC, and 
appointed by the Steering Committee. In addition, all reviewers must 
meet qualifications required for the peer review. The independent 
reviewers can come from the CIE, academia, or be nominated by the 
public. Reviewers will be selected in accordance with NS2 peer reviewer 
selection guidelines (50 CFR 600.315(b)(2) and (c)(2)), and in 
accordance NOAA's Conflict of Interest Policy. Like a Tier 2 panel, 
Tier 3 panels will consist of three to five experts, the exact size 
determined by the WPSAR Coordinators and approved by the Steering 
Committee. Under Tier 3 only, the Steering Committee may unanimously 
agree to a WPRFMC SSC/PIFSC-only review.
    (v) Transparency. All meetings are open to the public, and will be 
announced in the Federal Register with a minimum of 14 days before a 
review. More detailed information for the WPSAR process is publicly 
available at http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/peer_reviews/wpsar/index.php.
    Other peer review processes. In addition to the peer review 
processes described above, NMFS uses other important peer review 
processes to ensure the use of the BSIA for fishery management 
decisions. While these processes provide critical peer review of 
scientific information, NMFS is not identifying them as jointly 
established peer review processes for purposes of MSA section 
302(g)(1)(E). Many of these other peer review processes are used in 
connection with transboundary and/or internationally-managed species 
under legal authorities other than the MSA. Examples include Atlantic 
tuna and tuna-like species managed pursuant to the International 
Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna; tropical Pacific tuna 
managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; Atlantic and 
Pacific salmon and Pacific hake/whiting, all managed in conjunction 
with Canada. Lack of inclusion on the list of MSA Sec.  302(g)(1)(E) 
peer review processes does not in any way diminish the integrity of 
those peer review processes or NMFS' confidence in and reliance on them 
for review of scientific information.

    Dated: August 10, 2016.
Ned Cyr,
Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-19522 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P