![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 12 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; and Amendment 12 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 7, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 66)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16891-16896]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ap99-25]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 990301058-9058-01; I.D. 011499B]
RIN 0648-AL56
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 12 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass Fisheries; Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; and Amendment 12 to
the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog
Fisheries
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 12 to the
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black
Sea Bass Fisheries; Amendment 8 to the FMP for the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; and Amendment 12 to the FMP for the
Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries. This proposed rule would
implement framework provisions for amending management measures for
these fisheries, restrict the size of domestic harvesting vessels
permitted in the Atlantic mackerel fishery without restricting the size
of processing vessels, and implement an operator permit requirement for
the surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries. These amendments are intended
to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of October
1996 (SFA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be sent to Jon C.
Rittgers, Acting Regional Administrator,
[[Page 16892]]
Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930. Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on the Mid-Atlantic
SFA Amendments.''
Comments regarding burden-hour estimates for collection-of-
information requirements contained in this proposed rule should be sent
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk
Officer).
Copies of the proposed amendments, the environmental assessments
(EA), the regulatory impact reviews, and other supporting documents are
available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 S. New Street,
Dover, DE 19904-6790.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 978-281-9221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, in
consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils, prepared proposed Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup,
and Black Sea Bass FMP. The Council, in consultation with the New
England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, prepared
proposed Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
FMP. The Council, in consultation with the New England Fishery
Management Council, prepared proposed Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surf
Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP.
NMFS published a notice of availability for these amendments in the
Federal Register on January 27, 1999 (64 FR 4065), soliciting public
comments on the three amendments through March 29, 1999. All comments
received by the end of that comment period on the proposed amendments,
whether specifically directed to any of the amendments or to this
proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision
on the amendments. Public comments must be received (not postmarked or
otherwise transmitted, including faxes) by the close of business on
March 29, 1999, to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.
Comments received after that date, but before the end of the comment
period for this proposed rule May 24, 1999, will not be considered in
the approval/disapproval decision of the amendments, but will be
considered in the decision on issuance of the final rule.
Overfishing Definition
All three of the FMP amendments would revise the overfishing
definitions to bring them into accord with the new national standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended by the SFA. Under the revised
standards, overfishing definitions must be composed of two reference
points, one for fishing mortality and one for stock biomass.
``Overfishing'' occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected
to a rate or level of F that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or
stock complex to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a
continuing basis. ``Overfished'' describes a stock or stock complex
with a sufficiently low biomass to require a change in management
practices to achieve the appropriate level or rate of stock rebuilding
(to Btarget ).
Only one change to the regulatory text is necessary because of the
new overfishing definitions. Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish FMP (Amendment 8) proposes to revise the maximum
fishing mortality rate for Illex squid to Fmsy to better
reflect the goal of achieving MSY on a continuing basis. The other
proposed FMP amendments do not require changes to the regulatory text.
Comments on these FMP amendments were solicited in the Notice of
Availability (64 FR 4065).
Framework Adjustment Process
The proposed amendments would add a framework adjustment process
for each of the fisheries, in addition to the annual specification
setting process. This provision would allow the Council to modify or
add management measures through a streamlined public review process. As
such, management measures that have been identified in the plan could
be implemented or adjusted at any time during the year. The following
management measures could be implemented or modified through framework
adjustment procedures for Amendments 12 and 8 (summer flounder, scup,
black sea bass, Atlantic mackerel, Loligo and Illex squids, and
butterfish fisheries) unless otherwise noted: Minimum and maximum fish
sizes; gear restrictions; permitting restrictions; recreational
possession and harvest limits and seasons; closed areas; commercial
seasons and trip limits; commercial quota system, including commercial
quota allocation procedure and possible quota set asides to mitigate
bycatch; restrictions on vessel size in length overall and gross
registered tons (LOA and GRT) or shaft horsepower; operator permits
(summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass only); regional management
and inseason adjustments to specifications (Atlantic mackerel, squid,
and butterfish only) and any other management measures currently
included in the FMP.
In addition, the following provisions could be implemented for the
fisheries managed under all three FMPs, unless otherwise noted: Set
aside quotas for scientific research; description and identification of
essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern;
management measures for fishing gear that impact EFH; overfishing
definition thresholds and targets; vessel tracking system; and optimum
yield range (surf clam and ocean quahogs only).
Other Proposed Measures
This proposed rule would restrict the size of domestic harvesting
vessels, but not processing vessels, permitted in the Atlantic mackerel
fishery. Any vessel that exceeds any one of the following: 165 ft (50.3
m) in LOA, or 750 GRT, or a shaft horsepower (shp) of 3,000, would be
ineligible for a permit to harvest Atlantic mackerel. NMFS believes
this proposed language describes clearly the intended effect of the
measure, which is to exclude all vessels meeting any one of the three
criteria.
NMFS is concerned that the wording of the regulation, as submitted
by the Council, would not achieve the Council's intentions by allowing
vessels to become eligible for a harvesting permit under various
combinations of length, tonnage and horsepower. Based on the record of
discussions at public Council meetings, this proposed rule would
interpret the Council's action to mean adoption of the most restrictive
interpretation of the criteria. NMFS is seeking comment on this
interpretation which would prohibit harvesting of Atlantic mackerel by
all vessels meeting any one of the preceding criteria. NMFS is also
seeking comment on the overall merits of such a prohibition on
harvesting vessels.
The Council is concerned about rapid over-capitalization of the
mackerel fleet by the entry of large vessels with significant
harvesting potential. The Council's analysis indicates that the current
fleet of vessels in the Northeast has more than enough fishing
harvesting capacity to take the sustainable harvest of Atlantic
mackerel. This analysis can be reviewed in its entirety by obtaining a
copy of Amendment 8 to the Atlantic
[[Page 16893]]
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP (see ADDRESSES).
Because Amendment 8 proposes to prohibit only vessels that exceed
the above specified limits from harvesting Atlantic mackerel and not
from processing it, NMFS, to be consistent with the intent of the
Council, proposes to modify the vessel and dealer permitting provisions
to provide for processing by such vessels. Specifically, the vessel
permit requirement would be revised to make vessels exceeding the size
limits specified ineligible for a permit to harvest Atlantic mackerel.
A new dealer permit category would be established to allow a vessel of
any size to receive, possess and process Atlantic mackerel at sea, as
well as to off-load the product. Such a vessel would be required to
obtain an at-sea processing permit and comply with the dealer reporting
requirements.
This proposed rule would implement, through Amendment 12 to the FMP
for the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries, the operator
permit requirement for individuals fishing for surf clams or ocean
quahogs. An operator is the master, captain, or other individual aboard
a fishing vessel who is in charge of that vessel's operations. Under
the proposed rule, any vessel fishing commercially for surf clams or
ocean quahogs in the EEZ would have to have on board at least one
operator who holds an operator permit issued pursuant to this FMP or
any other FMP prepared by the Mid-Atlantic or the New England Fishery
Management Councils. The operator may be held accountable for
violations of the fishing regulations and may be subject to an operator
permit sanction for violations. During the permit sanction period, the
individual operator could not be aboard any federally permitted fishing
vessel or any vessel subject to Federal fishing regulations while the
vessel is at sea or engaged in off-loading.
Technical Changes
Effective February 1, 1991, NMFS closed the fishing grounds located
east of 69 deg. W. longitude, and south of 42 deg.20' N. latitude to
surf clam and ocean quahog harvesting (56 FR 3980, February 1, 1991).
That area was closed to fishing for surf clams and ocean quahogs due to
high concentrations of the organism that causes paralytic shellfish
poisoning (PSP) currently found in these species at that location. The
original notification specified that the area would remain closed until
the Secretary of Commerce determines that the adverse environmental
conditions caused by the PSP toxin are no longer present. Since that
closure is still in effect, NMFS proposes to codify the closure so that
new entrants into the fishery, and those who may not have been actively
participating in the fishery since 1991, can be notified more easily of
the closure and subsequent re-opening, should it occur.
Additionally, NMFS proposes to suspend the sea turtle conservation
regulations codified at Sec. 648.106. The measures implemented in
Amendment 2 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP (57 FR
57358, December 4, 1992) were intended to serve a temporary function,
pending implementation of permanent measures under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Those regulations are now in place under
50 CFR parts 217 and 227. Regulations issued under the ESA supersede
the regulations issued under part 648, which are proposed to be
replaced with a cross reference to parts 217 and 227.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendments that this
proposed rule would implement are consistent with the national
standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. NMFS,
in making that determination, will take into account the data, views,
and comments received during the comment period.
The Council prepared EAs for each of the amendments that discuss
the impacts on the environment. Copies of the environmental assessments
are available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
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
as follows:
Some of the provisions implemented by this rule, i.e., the
revised overfishing definitions and the framework process, are not
expected to impact participants in any of these fisheries.
Consequently, these provisions would not change historical
production or normal business practices associated with the fishery.
For the operator permit provision, approximately 21 of the 84
vessels that landed surf clams or ocean quahogs in 1997 (25 percent)
are operated by individuals who would be required to obtain that
permit. These individuals would not already have a permit issued, as
required by another fishery. Compliance costs associated with this
requirement are estimated at $22 ($15 form preparation, plus $7 for
passport photographs), to be incurred every 3 years only, since the
permit is valid for that time. Therefore, it is realistic to assume
that this cost would equate to but a small percentage of the
annualized costs of the surf clam and quahog industry. The vessel
size restriction is estimated to impact 1 of approximately 1,000
vessels that represent potential new entry into the directed
mackerel fishery. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was
not prepared. Any changes in management provisions that arise as a
result of the measures enacted by these amendments would be reviewed
for economic impacts when submitted.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. These collection-of-information
requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. The requirements
and their estimated response times are: Operator permits at 1 hour per
response, at-sea processor permits at 5 minutes per response, and
weekly reporting for at-sea processors at 2 minutes to complete the
dealer purchase report (Form 88-30), and 4 minutes to summarize and
call-in the weekly IVR report. The response times shown include the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Public comment is sought regarding whether these proposed
collections-of-information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information has
practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection-of-information,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Send comments regarding these burden
estimates or any other aspect of the data requirements, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 16894]]
Dated: March 31, 1999.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.4 Vessel and individual commercial permits.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) Atlantic mackerel permit. Any vessel of the United States may
obtain a permit to fish for or retain Atlantic mackerel in or from the
EEZ, except for vessels that exceed 165 feet in length overall (LOA),
or 750 gross registered tons, or have shaft horsepower exceeding 3000
shp. Vessels that exceed the size restriction may obtain an at-sea
processing permit specified under Sec. 648.6(a)(2).
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 648.5, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.5 Operator permits.
(a) General. Any operator of a vessel fishing for or possessing sea
scallops in excess of 40 lb (18.1 kg), NE Multispecies, and, mackerel,
squid, or butterfish, or scup, and, black sea bass, or, as of [insert
effective date of the final rule], Atlantic surf clams and ocean quahog
harvested in or from the EEZ, or issued a permit for these species
under this part, must have been issued under this section and carry on
board, a valid operator's permit.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 648.6, paragraph (a) is redesignated paragraph (a)(1)
and a heading is added to newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1); a new
paragraph (a)(2) is added; and a paragraph (c) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.6 Dealer/processor permits.
(a) General. (1) Dealer permits. * * *
(2) At-sea processors. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Sec. 648.4(a)(5), any vessel of the United States must have been issued
and carry on board a valid at-sea processor permit issued under this
section to receive over the side, possess and process Atlantic mackerel
harvested in or from the EEZ by a lawfully permitted vessel of the
United States.
* * * * *
(c) Information requirements. Applications must contain at least
the following information and any other information required by the
Regional Administrator: Company name, place(s) of business (principal
place of business if applying for a surf clam and ocean quahog permit),
mailing address(es) and telephone number(s), owner's name, dealer
permit number (if a renewal), name and signature of the person
responsible for the truth and accuracy of the application, a copy of
the certificate of incorporation if the business is a corporation, and
a copy of the partnership agreement and the names and addresses of all
partners, if the business is a partnership, name of at-sea processor
vessel, and current vessel documentation papers, if an at-sea processor
permit.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 648.7, the last two sentences of paragraph (c) are
removed and paragraph (f)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.7 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) At-sea purchasers, receivers, or processors. All persons
purchasing, receiving, or processing any summer flounder, or mackerel,
or squid, or butterfish, or scup, or black sea bass at sea for landing
at any port of the United States must submit information identical to
that required by paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section,
as applicable, and provide those reports to the Regional Administrator
or designee on the same frequency basis.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 648.14, paragraph (p)(10) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(10) Fish for, retain, or possess Atlantic mackerel in or from the
EEZ with a vessel that exceeds 165 ft (50.3 m) in length overall, or
750 GRT, or 3000 shp, except for processing Atlantic mackerel by a
vessel holding a valid at-sea processor permit pursuant to
Sec. 648.6(a)(2).
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 648.20, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.20 Maximum optimum yield (OYs).
* * * * *
(c) Illex-catch associated with a fishing mortality rate of
Fmsy .
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 648.21, paragraph (b)(2)(i) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.21 Procedures for determining initial annual amounts.
* * * * *
(b) * * *.
(2) Mackerel. (i) Mackerel ABC must be calculated from the formula
ABC = T - C, where C is the estimated catch of mackerel in Canadian
waters for the upcoming fishing year and T is the catch associated with
a fishing mortality rate that is equal to Ftarget (F= 0.25)
at 890,000 mt spawning stock biomass (or greater) and decreases
linearly to zero at 450,000 mt spawning stock biomass (\1/2\
Bmsy ).
* * * * *
9. Section 648.24 is added under subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 648.24 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a) Within season management action. The MAFMC, at any time, may
initiate action to add or adjust management measures within the
Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP if it finds that action is
necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
plan.
(1) Adjustment process. The MAFMC shall develop and analyze
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC
meetings. The MAFMC must provide the public with advance notice of the
availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and
economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the
proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the
second MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the
following categories: minimum fish size, maximum fish size, gear
restrictions, gear requirements or prohibitions, permitting
restrictions, recreational possession limit, recreational seasons,
closed areas, commercial seasons, commercial trip limits, commercial
quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure and
possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch, recreational harvest
limit, annual specification quota setting process, FMP Monitoring
Committee composition and process, description and identification of
essential fish habitat (and fishing gear management measures that
impact EFH), description and identification of habitat areas of
particular concern,
[[Page 16895]]
overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets, regional
gear restrictions, regional season restrictions (including option to
split seasons), restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft
horsepower, any other management measures currently included in the
FMP, set aside quota for scientific research, regional management, and
process for inseason adjustment to the annual specification.
(2) MAFMC recommendation. After developing management actions and
receiving public testimony, the MAFMC shall make a recommendation to
the Regional Administrator. The MAFMC's recommendation must include
supporting rationale, if management measures are recommended, an
analysis of impacts, and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator
on whether to issue the management measures as a final rule. If MAFMC
recommends that the management measures should be issued as a final
rule, MAFMC must consider at least the following factors, and provide
support and analysis for each factor considered:
(i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended
management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a
proposed rule, and whether the regulations would have to be in place
for an entire harvest/fishing season.
(ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for
participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the
development of the recommended management measures.
(iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.
(iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management
measures following their implementation as a final rule.
(3) Regional Administrator action. If the MAFMC's recommendation
includes adjustments or additions to management measures and, after
reviewing the MAFMC's recommendation and supporting information:
(i) If the Regional Administrator concurs with MAFMC's recommended
management measures and determines that the recommended management
measures should be issued as a final rule based on the factors
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the measures will be
issued as a final rule in the Federal Register.
(ii) If the Regional Administrator concurs with MAFMC's recommended
management measures and determines that the recommended management
measures should be published first as a proposed rule, the measures
will published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register. After
additional public comment, if the Regional Administrator concurs with
the MAFMC recommendation, the measures will be issued as a final rule
in the Federal Register.
(iii) If the Regional Administrator does not concur, MAFMC will be
notified in writing of the reasons for the non-concurrence.
(4) Emergency actions. Nothing in this section is meant to derogate
from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action under
section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(b) [Reserved]
10. In Sec. 648.73, paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.73 Closed areas.
(a) * * *
(4) Georges Bank. The paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)
contaminated area known as Georges Bank and located east of 69 deg. W.
longitude, and south of 42 deg.20' N. latitude.
* * * * *
11. Section 648.77 under Subpart E is added to read as follows:
Sec. 648.77 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a) Within season management action. At any time, MAFMC may
initiate action to add or adjust management measures within the
Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP if it finds that action is
necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
plan.
(1) Adjustment process. MAFMC shall develop and analyze appropriate
management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC meetings. MAFMC
must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the
recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and
biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed
adjustment(s) at the first meeting, and prior to and at the second
MAFMC meeting. The MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or additions
to management measures must come from one or more of the following
categories: The overfishing definition (both the threshold and target
levels) description and identification of EFH (and fishing gear
management measures that impact EFH), habitat areas of particular
concern, set aside quota for scientific research, vessel tracking
system, optimum yield range.
(2) MAFMC recommendation. After developing management actions and
receiving public testimony, MAFMC shall make a recommendation to the
Regional Administrator. MAFMC's recommendation must include supporting
rationale, if management measures are recommended, an analysis of
impacts, and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator on whether
to issue the management measures as a final rule. If MAFMC recommends
that the management measures should be issued as a final rule, it must
consider at least the following factors, and provide support and
analysis for each factor considered:
(i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended
management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a
proposed rule, and whether the regulations would have to be in place
for an entire harvest/fishing season.
(ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for
participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the
development of recommended management measures.
(iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.
(iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management
measures adopted following their implementation as a final rule.
(3) Regional Administrator action. If MAFMC's recommendation
includes adjustments or additions to management measures and, after
reviewing MAFMC's recommendation and supporting information:
(i) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the MAFMC's
recommended management measures and determines that the recommended
management measures should be issued as a final rule based on the
factors specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the measures
will be issued as a final rule in the Federal Register.
(ii) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the MAFMC's
recommended management measures and determines that the recommended
management measures should be published first as a proposed rule, the
measures will be published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register.
After additional public comment, if the Regional Administrator concurs
with the MAFMC recommendation, the measures will be issued as a final
rule and published in the Federal Register.
(iii) If the Regional Administrator does not concur, MAFMC will be
notified in writing of the reasons for the non-concurrence.
(4) Emergency actions. Nothing in this section is meant to derogate
from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action under
section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(b) [Reserved]
[[Page 16896]]
12. Section 648.107 is added under Subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 648.107 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a) Within season management action. MAFMC, at any time, may
initiate action to add or adjust management measures within the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP if it finds that action is
necessary to meet or be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
plan.
(1) Adjustment process. MAFMC shall develop and analyze appropriate
management actions over the span of at least two MAFMC meetings. MAFMC
must provide the public with advance notice of the availability of the
recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s) and economic and
biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on the proposed
adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the second MAFMC
meeting. MAFMC's recommendations on adjustments or additions to
management measures must come from one or more of the following
categories: Minimum fish size, maximum fish size, gear restrictions,
gear requirements or prohibitions, permitting restrictions,
recreational possession limit, recreational seasons, closed areas,
commercial seasons, commercial trip limits, commercial quota system
including commercial quota allocation procedure and possible quota set
asides to mitigate bycatch, recreational harvest limit, annual
specification quota setting process, FMP Monitoring Committee
composition and process, description and identification of essential
fish habitat (and fishing gear management measures that impact EFH),
description and identification of habitat areas of particular concern,
overfishing definition and related thresholds and targets, regional
gear restrictions, regional season restrictions (including option to
split seasons), restrictions on vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft
horsepower, operator permits, any other commercial or recreational
management measures, any other management measures currently included
in the FMP, and set aside quota for scientific research.
(2) MAFMC recommendation. After developing management actions and
receiving public testimony, MAFMC shall make a recommendation to the
Regional Administrator. MAFMC's recommendation must include supporting
rationale, if management measures are recommended, an analysis of
impacts, and a recommendation to the Regional Administrator on whether
to issue the management measures as a final rule. If MAFMC recommends
that the management measures should be issued as a final rule, it must
consider at least the following factors and provide support and
analysis for each factor considered:
(i) Whether the availability of data on which the recommended
management measures are based allows for adequate time to publish a
proposed rule, and whether the regulations would have to be in place
for an entire harvest/fishing season.
(ii) Whether there has been adequate notice and opportunity for
participation by the public and members of the affected industry in the
development of recommended management measures.
(iii) Whether there is an immediate need to protect the resource.
(iv) Whether there will be a continuing evaluation of management
measures adopted following their implementation as a final rule.
(3) Regional Administrator action. If MAFMC's recommendation
includes adjustments or additions to management measures and, if after
reviewing the MAFMC's recommendation and supporting information:
(i) The Regional Administrator concurs with the MAFMC's recommended
management measures and determines that the recommended management
measures should be issued as a final rule based on the factors
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the measures will be
issued as a final rule in the Federal Register.
(ii) If the Regional Administrator concurs with the MAFMC's
recommended management measures and determines that the recommended
management measures should be published first as a proposed rule, the
measures will be published as a proposed rule in the Federal Register.
After additional public comment, if the Regional Administrator concurs
with the MAFMC recommendation, the measures will be issued as a final
rule and published in the Federal Register.
(iii) If the Regional Administrator does not concur, the MAFMC will
be notified in writing of the reasons for the non-concurrence.
(4) Emergency actions. Nothing in this section is meant to derogate
from the authority of the Secretary to take emergency action under
section 305(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(b) [Reserved]
13. Section 648.127 is added under Subpart H to read as follows:
Sec. 648.127 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a) Within season management action. See Sec. 648.107(a).
(1) Adjustment process. See Sec. 648.107(a)(1).
(2) MAFMC recommendation. See Sec. 648.107(a)(2)(i) to (iv).
(3) Regional Administrator action. See Sec. 648.107(a)(i) through
(iii).
(4) Emergency actions. See Sec. 648.107(a)(4).
(b) [Reserved]
14. Section 648.147 is added under Subpart I to read as follows:
Sec. 648.147 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a) Within season management action. See Sec. 648.107(a).
(1) Adjustment process. See Sec. 648.107(a)(1).
(2) MAFMC recommendation. See Sec. 648.107(a)(2)(i) through (iv).
(3) Regional Administrator action. See Sec. 648.107(a)(i) through
(iii).
(4) Emergency actions. See Sec. 648.107(a)(4).
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 99-8470 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F