[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57587-57595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 990301058-9225-02; I.D. 011499B]
RIN 0648-AL56
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 12 to the
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan
(FMP); Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP;
and Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the approved portions
of Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan (FMP); Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish FMP; and Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surf Clam
and Ocean Quahog FMP. This 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. The purpose of these amendments is to meet the
requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) of October 1996
(SFA).
DATES: Effective November 26, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SFA 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.
Comments regarding burden-hour estimates for collection-of-
information requirements contained in this rule should be sent to the
same address and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:
NOAA Desk Officer).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina L. Spallone, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 978-281-9221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup,
and Black Sea Bass FMP; Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid,
and Butterfish FMP; and Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surf Clam and
Ocean Quahog FMP (collectively referred to as the SFA Amendments) were
prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to
address the new requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended by
the SFA. Background concerning the development of the SFA Amendments
was provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking (64 FR 16891, April
7, 1999), and is not repeated here. This final rule implements approved
management measures contained in the SFA Amendments intended to
eliminate overfishing, rebuild many of the associated stocks, comply
with the provisions of the SFA, and achieve other goals. The SFA
Amendments were partially approved by NMFS on behalf of the Secretary
of Commerce (Secretary) on April 28, 1999.
Upon evaluation of the SFA Amendments as required by Section
304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS, on behalf of the
Secretary, disapproved several provisions of the amendments. The
disapproved measures include the scup rebuilding schedule, the scup
bycatch provision, the surf clam overfishing definition (OFD), and the
deficient essential fish habitat (EFH) portions of all three of the SFA
amendments. The deficient portions include: Section 2.2.3.7--Fishing
Impacts on EFH and Section 2.2.4--Options for Managing Adverse Effects
from Fishing in Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black
Sea Bass FMP; Section 2.2.3.7--Fishing Impacts on EFH and Section
2.2.4--Options for Managing Adverse Effects from Fishing in Amendment 8
to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP; and Section
2.2.3.8--Fishing Impacts on EFH,, and Section 2.2.4-- Options for
Managing Adverse Effects from Fishing in Amendment 12 to the Atlantic
Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP. NMFS has notified the Council of the
disapprovals and made recommendations for addressing the deficiencies
noted.
Measures Approved in SFA Amendments
This final rule implements revisions to the Summer Flounder, Scup,
and Black Sea Bass FMP, the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish
FMP, and the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP by adding a
framework adjustment process in addition to the annual specification
setting process for each of the fisheries.
This final rule also revises regulations implementing the Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP by revising the maximum fishing
mortality rate (F) for Illex squid to FMSY to reflect better
the goal of achieving maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing
basis, and restricting the size of domestic harvesting, but not
processing, vessels permitted in the Atlantic mackerel fishery. A
vessel permitted in the Atlantic mackerel fishery may not exceed either
of the following specifications: (1) 165 ft (50.3 m) in length overall
(LOA) and 750 gross registered tons (GRT), or (2) a shaft horsepower
(shp) of 3,000 shp.
Comments and Responses
Forty-six written comments on the SFA Amendments were received
during the comment period established by the notice of availability of
the SFA Amendments, which ended March 29, 1999 (64 FR 4065, January 27,
1999). These comments were considered by NMFS in its decision to
approve partially the SFA Amendments on April 28, 1999. In addition,
NMFS received 10 comments during the comment period specified for the
proposed rule, which ended on May 24, 1999. A number of the comments
received on the proposed rule did not specifically address the proposed
regulations. In fact, many of these letters referenced existing
provisions in the management structures for each of the fisheries that
were not proposed for revision under the SFA Amendments. Since those
existing provisions had already been found to comply with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act under reviews for both previous actions and the SFA
Amendments, and were not revised in the SFA Amendments, NMFS determined
that it would be inappropriate to address those comments in this final
rule. Comments received during the specified comment
[[Page 57588]]
periods pertaining to either the SFA Amendments or the proposed rule
are addressed here.
General
Comment 1: One commenter supported the complete adoption of the SFA
Amendments.
Response: Comment noted. NMFS, however, did not approve all of the
SFA Amendments. Upon evaluation of the SFA Amendments, as required by
Section 304(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS, on behalf of the
Secretary, only partially approved the SFA Amendments. The measures
disapproved were described in the preceding summary section and are not
repeated here.
Atlantic Mackerel Vessel Size Restriction
Comment 2: Four comment letters, including three form letters
representing 18 comments, supported the size restriction for vessels
harvesting Atlantic mackerel. Commenters felt the action was necessary
to slow the growth of the fishery while markets develop, and called the
restriction ``proactive'' rather than ``reactive.'' Response: NMFS
approved this measure and supports the Council's intent to control
access to the Atlantic mackerel fishery and fully develop a controlled
access provision in a forthcoming amendment to the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish FMP. This restriction and the publication of the
control date (September 12, 1997) begins the process of addressing the
Council's concerns about overcapitalization.
The Council established a control date for the Atlantic mackerel
fishery of September 12, 1997 (62 FR 48047). The advance notice of
proposed rulemaking informed the public that anyone entering the
Atlantic mackerel fishery after that date could not be assured access
to the fishery if a program to limit such access is developed. The
control date and vessel size restriction give the Council time to
develop a limited entry program without fear of an influx of vessels
having high fishing power and capacity.
Comment 3: One commenter questioned the need for the vessel size
restriction, noting that the restriction did not appear in Section
1.1--Purpose and Need for Action, and appeared to contradict the FMP
objective that states the goal of promoting ``the growth of the U.S.
commercial fishery, including fishery for export.'' The commenter also
questioned how the size restriction achieves the greatest overall
benefit to the Nation (as defined by ``optimum'' under National
Standard 1).
Response: NMFS believes that the vessel size restriction falls
within the scope of the FMP objective of promoting the growth of the
commercial Atlantic mackerel fishery. The vessel size restriction does
not contradict that, or any other, objective of the FMP. The Council
developed this provision not to prevent the growth of the commercial
fishery, but rather to control its growth. The Council was concerned
about the possibility of rapid overcapitalization of the fishery and of
significant increases in harvest potential. Furthermore, the Council
was concerned about providing high priority to historical participants
in the Atlantic mackerel fishery as it considered development of a
limited access system. The vessel size restriction in Amendment 8 helps
protect against rapid overcapitalization and significant increases in
harvest potential, while also allowing historical participants to
remain in the fishery.
The term ``optimum yield'' (OY) refers to the yield from a fishery
that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation,
prescribed by MSY, and reduced by social, economic, or ecological
factors. National standard 1 states that conservation and management
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continual
basis, the OY from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. National
standard 1 does not require justification of the vessel size
restriction by explaining how it achieves the greatest overall benefit
to the Nation. Nevertheless, the Magnuson-Sevens Act authorizes
consideration of social, economic, biological, and ecological factors
in the development of conservation and management measures. The vessel
size restriction reflects legitimate concerns about such factors,
including overcapitalization, harvest potential, historical
participation, and the impact on the resource due to possible
overcapitalization and increased harvest potential.
Comment 4: One commenter stated that no environmental impact
analysis was conducted on the size restriction nor was any rationale
put forward for the specific size parameters.
Response: An environmental assessment was prepared for Amendment 8
to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP and concluded that
approval and implementation of the proposed action, which included the
vessel size restriction, would not significantly affect the quality of
the human environment. As a result, an environmental impact statement
was not required. In Amendment 8, the Council explained that the vessel
size restrictions were developed in response to concerns about the
rapid overcapitalization of the mackerel fleet by the entry of large
vessels with significant harvest potential and, by implication, the
effect such a rapid chance in the fishery may have on the resource. By
preventing such a rapid change in the fishery, the vessel size
restriction constitutes a proactive means of protecting the resource
and, therefore, would not have an adverse impact on the environment.
An analysis of the parameters of the Atlantic mackerel vessel size
restriction was conducted by the Council in Amendment 8. The analysis
investigated the vessels currently participating in the mackerel
fishery, including vessel size necessary to participate successfully.
The size limits adopted represent the upper bound of those permitted
vessels that have been shown to harvest Atlantic mackerel successfully.
Thus, the size restriction caps the size parameters of individual
vessels in the fleet to those which currently exist in the fishery.
Only new, larger vessels are precluded from entering the fishery by
this restriction.
Comment 5: Thirty-three commenters opposed the vessel size
restriction. Opposition to the measure focused mainly on fairness,
equity, and conservation and management rationale. Commenters felt that
the provision was an attempt by competitors to ``reserve the resource
for themselves,'' would impact only one fishing vessel, and violated
several national standards.
Response: The size restriction for vessels harvesting Atlantic
mackerel is not intended to single out an individual, corporation, or
other entity, but is intended to preclude large, high capacity vessels
from entering the fishery. This restriction is designed to address a
class of vessels and to prevent rapid overcapitalization while the
Council develops a limited access program for the Atlantic mackerel
fishery in a future action. NMFS found the action in compliance with
the national standards.
Comment 6: The Council submitted language to clarify the Atlantic
mackerel vessel size restriction. Specifically, the Council reaffirmed
that it intends the restriction to be applied to vessels that exceed
any one of the two following criteria: (1) 165 ft LOA and 750 GRT; (2)
shaft horsepower of 3,000 shp.
Response: NMFS had raised concerns about the specific language of
the restriction both during the Council meetings and after Amendment 8
was submitted during informal discussions with Council staff. It was
not clear
[[Page 57589]]
whether the Council's intent was to adopt the vessel size restriction
language of the American Fisheries Act, the Department of Commerce
appropriations bill language, or the language developed by the New
England Fishery Management Council for the Atlantic Herring FMP.
Because of the subtle differences between all of these varying
provisions, NMFS chose to publish the most restrictive provision in the
proposed rule and solicit comment. No comments on the precise wording
of the measure were received. However, based on the Council's
clarification of its intent, the Council's clarification is accepted
and adopted in this final rule.
Overfishing Definitions
Comment 7: One commenter felt that the OFDs for both scup and black
sea bass were not sufficiently precautionary. The commenter cites
technical recommendations that F0.1 be adopted for both
species.
Response: The Council adopted FMAX = 0.32 as a fishing
mortality reference point proxy for FMSY for black sea bass,
and FMAX = 0.26 as a proxy for FMSY for scup.
Scientific advice recommended a more conservative reference point,
F0.1 = 0.18 as a proxy for FMSY for black sea
bass, and F0.1 = 0.15 as a proxy for FMSY for
scup, to compensate for the uncertainty in the assessment of both. NMFS
approved the OFDs for scup and black sea bass because they were
conceptually sound, albeit less conservative and risk averse than those
recommended by scientists.
Comment 8: One commenter felt that, for scup and black sea bass,
the rebuilding plans specified in Amendment 12 to the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP were not adequate and should be
disapproved. The commenter stated that, ``given the level of
uncertainty [in the assessment data for scup], a much greater level of
caution'' is necessary.
Response: NMFS agrees that the rebuilding plan specified for scup
was not adequate, and, therefore, disapproved that provision because of
the minimal probability that the stock could rebuild to the minimum
biomass index within 10 years. The combination of the less conservative
choice of mortality reference point by the Council (see comment 7 and
response) and the general decline of this fishery is risk-prone and the
rebuilding program warranted disapproval.
The rebuilding plan for black sea bass was not disapproved because
the current rebuilding schedule for black sea bass is less risk-prone
for a stock that has been relatively stable, albeit at low levels, for
the past decade. In contrast, the scup stock indices have been trending
downward during that time and the rebuilding schedule posed an
unacceptably high risk.
Comment 9: Three commenters found the Illex OFD confusing.
Response: Since the OFDs are very technical in nature, they are
also often confusing. Since the commenters did not specify what they
found to be confusing in particular about the definition, it is
difficult to respond. During development of Amendment 8, there was some
confusion surrounding the estimation of the harvestable yield in the
Illex squid fishery that would arise from the OFD. For the purposes of
this response, NMFS will assume this is the point about which the
commenter is confused. Rather than explain the calculations that were
made which, again, would necessarily be technical, NMFS points out that
an error was made that is corrected by this rule. This correction
results in an increased harvest of Illex squid from 18,000 to 22,800
metric tons (mt). This revision--incorporating the intended, correct
value--was approved by NMFS as part of the review of Amendment 8.
Comment 10: One commenter supported the Illex squid OFD.
Response: Comment noted. As noted, the Illex squid OFD was
approved, as corrected (see comment 9 and response).
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Comment 11: Two commenters considered the EFH portions of the SFA
Amendments to be overly broad and exceeding the intent of Congress. The
commenter specifically cited the breadth of EFH designations, noting
that EFH appeared to be designated in an arbitrary manner, over the
range of the species, and included coastal state and estuarine waters.
The commenter opposed what he interpreted to be a requirement for EFH
to be further designated by ``project proponents.'' Another commenter
supported the identification of EFH, noting that a broad designation of
EFH was mandatory, especially where a stock is overfished and loss of
habitat is considered to be a contributing factor. The commenter also
supports the designation of submerged aquatic vegetation as habitat
area of particular concern (HAPC) due to its value as nursery habitat.
Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth
to maturity. Therefore, the geographic scope of EFH must be
sufficiently broad to encompass the biological requirements of the
species. The information that the Council used for EFH designation was
primarily species distribution and relative abundance data, which would
be classified as ``level 2'' information under the EFH regulations (50
CFR 600.815). Since the information available was not more specific
(e.g., did not show species production by habitat type), the approach
prescribed by the regulations led to fairly broad EFH designations. The
EFH regulations at 50 CFR Sec. 600.10 interpret the statutory
definition of EFH to include aquatic areas that are used by fish,
including historically used areas, where appropriate, to support a
sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy
ecosystem, provided that restoration is technologically and
economically feasible. The Council's EFH designation is consistent with
these requirements.
The specific methodology used by the Council for designating EFH
was based on the highest relative density of each life stage for each
species. This methodology was developed by scientists at the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, and is supported by scientific research and
ecological concepts that show that the distribution and abundance of a
species or stock are determined by physical and biological variables.
The abundance of a species is higher where conditions are more
favorable, and this tends to occur near the center of a species range.
As population abundance fluctuates, the area occupied changes. At low
levels of abundance, populations are expected to occupy the habitat
that maximizes their survival, growth, and reproduction. As population
abundance increases, individuals move into other available habitats.
Under the consultation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a
Federal agency must consult with NMFS when a proposed project has the
potential to impact adversely any area of EFH that has been designated
by the Council. The EFH regulations at 50 CFR 600.920(g) require that
Federal agencies submit an EFH Assessment that describes the effects of
the action on EFH. No requirement exists for further designation of EFH
by project applicants.
Comment 12: A commenter stated that the conservation and
enhancement recommendations for non-fishing impacts to EFH that are
provided in the SFA Amendments are not based on the best available
science, nor sufficiently supported. Two commenters contended that the
recommended measures do not take into consideration current practices,
are likely to be in conflict with measures being pursued under
[[Page 57590]]
other regulatory programs, and may cause severe over regulation. One
commenter also stated that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not empower the
Councils to address non-fishing activities.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the conservation and enhancement
recommendations for non-fishing impacts to EFH are not based on the
best available science. The information presented in the EFH sections
of the SFA Amendments is well researched and substantiated by the best
available information. Moreover, the commenter did not provide examples
of specific information not considered by the Councils.
Conservation and enhancement recommendations for non-fishing
industries were included to satisfy the requirements of section
303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ``identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and enhancement of [EFH].'' This information
is provided to assist non-fishing industries, such as the timber and
paper industries, in avoiding impacts to EFH. The recommendations are
neither posed as, nor meant to be, binding in nature. It is up to the
discretion of the non-fishing industries and relevant regulatory
agencies whether these recommendations are implemented.
Additionally, under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
NMFS is required, and the Councils are authorized, to make conservation
recommendations to any Federal or state agency regarding any activity
that would adversely affect EFH. Moreover, Federal agencies are
required to respond to these recommendations in writing.
Comment 13: Two commenters stated that the SFA Amendments contain
no meaningful threshold of significance or likelihood of adverse effect
on habitat for non-fishing impacts. The commenters suggested that the
consultation and conservation recommendation provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act will be burdensome and unworkable. One commenter
contended that the consultation procedures will be redundant with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), costly, and time consuming.
Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Federal action agencies
to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH.
Adverse effects, as defined at 50 CFR 600.810(a), means any impact that
reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may
include, for example, direct effects through contamination or physical
disruption, indirect effects such as loss of prey or reduction in
species fecundity, and site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including
individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. Only
actions that have a reasonably foreseeable adverse effect require
consultation.
Consultations are not likely to be redundant or inefficient. The
EFH regulations provide for streamlined consultation procedures, such
as general concurrences and abbreviated consultations, that may be used
when the activities at issue do not have the potential to cause
substantial adverse effects on EFH. The EFH consultation requirements
will be consolidated with other existing consultation and environmental
review procedures wherever appropriate. This approach will ensure that
EFH consultations do not duplicate other environmental reviews, yet
still fulfill the statutory requirement for Federal actions to consider
potential effects on EFH.
Comment 14: A commenter stated that the SFA Amendments generally
failed to address the potential for significant adverse impacts of
these amendments on non-fishing entities, specifically citing the
requirements of NEPA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
Response: The conservation and enhancement recommendations outlined
in the SFA Amendments include a review of suggested measures for
municipal, state, and Federal agencies and other organizations for the
conservation and enhancement of EFH. As stated previously, these
recommendations are non-binding. Any regulatory action that may reflect
these recommendations will be subject to the analysis and public review
required by state or Federal law, which will be the appropriate vehicle
for consideration of impacts to both fishing and non-fishing entities.
In the EAs included with the SFA Amendments, the Council found, and
NMFS concurs, that there will be no significant impacts on the human
environment as a result of these SFA Amendments. The EFH regulations
and NOAA policy require that NMFS coordinate EFH consultations with
other consultation and commenting requirements under environmental
review procedures currently in place. This will eliminate duplication
and will ensure a workable review process.
An analysis of the rule with respect to the requirements of the RFA
concluded that the SFA Amendments would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, no
regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared. Further, no specific
management measures were submitted regarding the EFH designation. Any
changes in management provisions that arise as a result of the measures
enacted by these SFA Amendments (such as a framework adjustment) will
be reviewed for their economic impacts when submitted.
Comment 15: A number of commenters stated that the amendment did
not adequately address fishing impacts to EFH, and urged NMFS to
disapprove these sections. Commenters stated that work plans to
implement additional HAPCs and gear management measures should be
developed.
Response: NMFS agrees that the Council did not adequately address
adverse impacts to EFH from fishing gear, and as a result, has
disapproved three sections of the SFA Amendments that relate to EFH.
In letters to the Council dated September 4, 1998, and October 2,
1998, NMFS identified the need for improvements in these sections and
provided specific recommendations. Although the Council attempted to
address many of the comments provided by NMFS, the SFA Amendments fell
short of the requirements set forth in both the SFA and the EFH
regulations. In order to comply with the EFH regulations, the
disapproved sections must be revised to discuss specifically how each
of the fishing equipment types used in areas designated as EFH affect
EFH. The SFA Amendments state that the gears expected to have the most
adverse impact are hydraulic clam dredges and the scallop dredge, and
note a number of discernable effects, but conclude that the effects are
minimal. The SFA Amendments should be revised to give a clearer
explanation of the basis for its conclusion about the magnitude and
permanence of any adverse effects.
Section 2.2.4 of all three amendments states that evidence of
various gear impacts on bottom habitat have been presented to the
Council, and that all mobile gear contacting the sea floor has
potential impact to EFH. However, the Council concludes that these
effects are not ``identifiable'' and that for this reason and lack of
quantifiable information, no management measures will be proposed.
Although the Council may be correct that no new management measures are
practicable, the SFA Amendments do not contain a sufficient discussion
or analysis to support this conclusion. The three amendments should be
revised either to provide a clear rationale for the conclusion that no
new management measures are practicable, in accordance with 50 CFR
600.815(a)(3)(iii) and (iv); or to propose new management measures that
[[Page 57591]]
address, to the extent practicable, any identifiable adverse effects.
Although NMFS agrees that the development of schedules for the
identification of HAPCs and gear management measures could be useful,
these activities are not required by either the Magnuson-Stevens Act or
the EFH regulations.
Other Comments
Comment 16: Three commenters felt that the analyses and discussion
of bycatch were not adequate, particularly with respect to the scup and
summer flounder fisheries. One of the commenters referred to discards
in these fisheries as ``significant'' and ``a clear problem'',
respectively, and noted that minimizing scup bycatch has taken on a
special urgency in light of what is believed to be a large year class
in 1997.
Response: NMFS agrees that the bycatch provision for scup was not
adequate, and disapproved the provision as inconsistent with National
Standard 9. Measures for scup in the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black
Sea Bass FMP do not reduce bycatch adequately or minimize bycatch
mortality. The most recent assessment for scup, conducted at the
27th stock assessment workshop (SAW-27) advised reducing F
``substantially and immediately'' and noted that reducing discards
(especially in small mesh fisheries) would have the most impact in that
regard. NMFS acknowledges that data with respect to identifying primary
discard sources sufficient to implement management measures are
limited. Still, it is envisioned that the Council would take the
precautionary approach to develop measures to reduce discards as a
result of this disapproval. The most recent stock assessment for summer
flounder (SAW-25) did not express similar concerns for that fishery,
although NMFS contemplates that the Council will take the precautionary
approach when establishing future actions for this fishery as well.
NMFS supports action related to this issue, particularly as a
follow-up to the discussions of scup discards in the April 27, 1999,
workshop held by the Council's Comprehensive Management Committee. This
Committee is charged with investigating alternatives to address scup
discards, such as gear modification and season/area closures.
Comment 17: In addition to non-compliance with National Standard 9,
one commenter believes the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
FMP does not comply with National Standard 8, the requirement to take
into account the impact of regulations on fishing communities, and
National Standard 10 on safety at sea. Specifically, the commenter
feels that the Council gave only ``cursory treatment'' to the changes
the summer flounder state-by-state quota has had on fishing communities
and that the quota created unsafe conditions for industry participants.
Response: NMFS approved the continuation of the state-by-state
allocation of summer flounder quota under Amendment 10 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP. The Council and Commission
agreed that, although the state-by-state system has some problems, it
is the most flexible in that it allows states to implement subquotas
and trip limits to manage best their individual fisheries. Review of
Amendment 10 included a review for consistency with the new National
Standards, 8, 9, and 10. During that review, the quota allocation was
found consistent with the national standards and other applicable law.
Comment 18: One commenter charges that the amendments do not
address Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards 1 (prevent
overfishing), 2 (best available scientific information), and 7
(unnecessary duplication). The commenter stated that the Council
``appeared to avoid serious discussion'' of addressing overfishing and
rebuilding overfished stocks.
Response: NMFS notes that the commenter did not elaborate on its
assertion that the SFA Amendments violated several national standards.
However, of the three FMPs reviewed under this rule, comprising a total
of nine separate species, three of those species are considered
overfished under their revised OFDs (summer flounder, scup, and black
sea bass). The SFA Amendments continue the rebuilding programs already
established for these species. These rebuilding programs called for an
end to overfishing of the summer flounder resource in 1998, of scup in
2002, and of black sea bass in 2003. These schedules continue to direct
the Council to design annual measures to achieve specific fishing
mortality rates. However, as noted earlier in this document, the
Council will be required to develop a more rigorous rebuilding program
for scup. The scientific advice advocates for more conservative
rebuilding measures, and NMFS agrees that more could have been done in
this regard. However, only the scup rebuilding schedule was found so
deficient as to compel disapproval (see response to comment 8), while
those for summer flounder and black sea bass were determined to be
adequate.
NMFS finds no evidence that the best scientific information was not
used by the Council, consistent with National Standard 2.
With regards to the commenter's assertion that the SFA Amendments
violate National Standard 7, NMFS assumes, for the purpose of
responding to this comment, that the commenter is alleging that the EFH
consultation process is duplicative of other federally required
consultation processes.
Inter-agency consultations on Federal activities that may adversely
affect EFH are required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 305(b)(2)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act states: ``Each Federal agency shall consult
with the Secretary with respect to any action authorized, funded, or
undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by
such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat
identified under this Act.'' Other Federal statutes, such as the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, and NEPA
require consultation or coordination between NMFS and other Federal
agencies. EFH consultations will be conducted, to the extent possible,
under existing review processes and within existing time frames. NMFS
is committed to a consultation process that will be effective,
efficient, and non-duplicative. The SFA Amendments contain conservation
recommendations that are appropriate for many Federal actions, and they
can also serve as guidelines that should be considered during project
planning.
Framework Adjustment Procedures
Comment 19: Six commenters supported the framework provisions.
Response: Comment noted. NMFS also supports the approved framework
provisions.
Comment 20: One commenter objects to inclusion of the OFD in the
framework procedure, and states that it is ``not a typical management
measure'' and is, therefore, inappropriate to include there.
Response: NMFS disagrees that inclusion of OFDs into the list of
items that may be altered by framework adjustment is inappropriate.
OFDs, and their related thresholds and targets, while not management
measures, may change as stocks rebuild and those values are
recalculated. Therefore, it is appropriate and scientifically sound
that the Council have the ability to adjust OFDs as improved
information becomes available without going through the formal
amendment process.
Pertinent Data/Reporting Methodology
Comment 21: One commenter felt that the use of the available data
(vessel trip
[[Page 57592]]
reports (VTR) and observer data) to describe discards is not ``valid or
defensible.'' The commenter notes ``ample evidence'' from public
comment that discards are more substantial than reported. The Council
should, according to the commenter, undertake ``an effort to reach out
to fishermen for a more complete documentation of their fluke [summer
flounder] discards.''
Response: While NMFS acknowledges that data are limited in
describing discards in many fisheries, anecdotal information presented
at public forums is often contradictory and difficult to assimilate
into a form useful for quantitative analysis. Currently, industry
participants are required by law to report discards, truthfully and
accurately, in their VTR logbooks. Industry cooperation in filling out
these reports accurately is essential to provide managers and
scientists with timely information to evaluate the condition of
resources. The information is also necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of current management measures and to validate the
information received through dealer reports. It is in industry's best
interest to fill out these logbooks accurately and completely so that
regulations are based on data that portray the industry correctly.
Comment 22: One commenter feels that the SFA Amendments do not
comply with the mandate to establish a standardized reporting
methodology for addressing discards.
Response: NMFS disagrees. The SFA Amendments do not establish a
standardized reporting system because such a system already exists. The
existing program includes the VTR system and sea sampling. The VTR
system was established in 1993 in response to industry concerns that
the voluntary reporting system did not provide complete information
about their particular fishery, port, or vessel. The VTR system reaches
all fishermen, even those in remote locations, and records important
information concerning fishing operations, including data on gear and
areas fished, as well as species kept and discarded.
The sea-sampling program is designed primarily to observe fishing
operations in fisheries that have interactions with protected resources
such as marine mammals and turtles. However, information on bycatch is
also collected on these sampled trips. In addition, the Administrator,
Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), may request any vessel
holding a moratorium permit for summer flounder, scup, or black sea
bass, or a permit for mackerel, squid, or butterfish, to carry a NMFS-
approved sea sampler/observer. If requested by the Regional
Administrator to carry an observer or sea sampler, a vessel may not
engage in any fishing operations in the respective fishery unless an
observer or sea sampler is on board, or unless the requirement is
waived.
Changes from the Proposed Rule
In Sec. 648.4, paragraph (a)(5)(iii) is revised to reflect the
request by the Council to clarify the language limiting the size and
horsepower of a vessel permitted to harvest Atlantic mackerel. In
Sec. 648.14, paragraph (p)(10) is added for the same reason.
In Sec. 648.5, paragraph (d) is revised to eliminate the optional
information submission of the applicant's social security number.
In Sec. 648.7, the last two sentences of paragraph (c) are removed,
as they refer to sections that were modified in previous actions.
Amendment 10 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
fisheries prohibited the transfer of summer flounder at sea (62 FR
63872, December 3, 1997). Language in Sec. 648.7(f)(3) includes
reporting requirements for at-sea processors. This language conflicts
with the prohibited action specified at Sec. 648.13(d). Therefore, the
language in Sec. 648.7 is revised to reflect the intent of Amendment 10
to prohibit transfer of summer flounder at sea.
In Sec. 648.21, paragraph (e) is removed, as it is redundant with
the inseason adjustment process established under the framework
provision in Sec. 648.24.
Section 648.106 Sea Turtle Conservation, is revised by removing the
old language and adding a reference to the current regulations
implementing these measures under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) 50 CFR parts 222 and 223. This revision was discussed
in the preamble to the proposed rule for this action (64 FR 16891,
April 7.1999), however, the regulatory text was inadvertently omitted
from the proposed rule. Because the public was notified and comment was
invited on the change as part of the proposed rule, NMFS publishes the
text as final.
Classification
This 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 when this rule was proposed that it would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While no comments were received specifically regarding this
certification, one commenter did state that the SFA Amendments
generally failed to address the potential for significant adverse
impacts on non-fishing entities, as required under the RFA. This
comment was addressed in the preamble (see the response to comment 14),
and did not cause NMFS to change its determination regarding the
certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not
prepared.
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 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject
to the PRA. These collection-of-information requirements have been
approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0648-0202 and 0648-0229. The
requirements and their estimated response times are as follows:
1. Under OMB control number 0648-0202, surf clam and ocean quahog
operator permits at 1 hour per response,
2. Under OMB control number 0648-0202, mackerel at-sea processor
permits at 5 minutes per response, and
2. Under OMB control number 0648-0229, mackerel dealer 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 interactive voice response 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. Send comments regarding these burden
estimates or any other aspect of the data requirements, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and to OMB (see
ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 19, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended
as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 57593]]
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 either 165 feet in length overall
(LOA) and 750 gross registered tons, or a shaft horsepower of 3000 shp.
Vessels that exceed the size or horsepower restrictions may seek to
obtain an at-sea processing permit specified under Sec. 648.6(a)(2).
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 648.5, paragraphs (a) and (d) are 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, monkfish,
mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, or, as of November
26, 1999, Atlantic surf clams and ocean quahogs, 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.
* * * * *
(d) Information requirements. An applicant must provide at least
all the following information and any other information required by the
Regional Administrator: Name, mailing address, and telephone number;
date of birth; hair color; eye color; height; weight; and signature of
the applicant.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 648.6, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 648.6 Dealer/processor permits.
(a) General. (1) Dealer permits. All NE multispecies, sea scallop,
summer flounder, surf clam, and ocean quahog dealers, and surf clam and
ocean quahog processors must have been issued under this section, and
have in their possession, a valid permit for these species. All
mackerel, squid, and butterfish dealers and all scup and black sea bass
dealers must have been issued under this section, and have in their
possession, a valid permit for these species.
(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, as applicable, 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.
* * * * *
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 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 either 165 ft (50.3 m) in length overall
and 750 GRT, or a shaft horsepower of 3000 shp, except for the
retention and possession of Atlantic mackerel for processing 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 and paragraph (e)
is removed 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 Council, 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 Council shall develop and analyze
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council
meetings. The Council 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 Council meeting. The Council'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
[[Page 57594]]
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, 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) Council recommendation. After developing management actions and
receiving public testimony, the Council shall make a recommendation to
the Regional Administrator. The Council'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 the
Council recommends that the management measures should be issued as a
final rule, the Council 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) NMFS action. If the Council's recommendation includes
adjustments or additions to management measures and, after reviewing
the Council's recommendation and supporting information:
(i) If NMFS concurs with the Council'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 NMFS concurs with the Council'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 NMFS concurs with the Council recommendation, the measures
will be issued as a final rule in the Federal Register.
(iii) If NMFS does not concur, the Council 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, which is located in Georges Bank, and is located
east of 69 deg. W. longitude, and south of 42 deg.20' N. latitude.
* * * * *
11. Section 648.77 is added under subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 648.77 Framework adjustments to management measures.
(a) Within season management action. The Council, at any time, 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. The Council shall develop and analyze
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council
meetings. The Council 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 Council meeting. The Council'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) Council recommendation. After developing management actions and
receiving public testimony, the Council shall make a recommendation to
the Regional Administrator. The Council'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 the
Council 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) NMFS action. If the Council's recommendation includes
adjustments or additions to management measures and, after reviewing
the Council's recommendation and supporting information:
(i) If NMFS concurs with the Council'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 NMFS concurs with the Council'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 NMFS concurs with the Council recommendation, the measures
will be issued as a final rule and published in the Federal Register.
(iii) If NMFS does not concur, the Council 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]
12. Section 648.106 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 57595]]
Sec. 648.106 Sea Turtle conservation.
Sea turtle regulations are found at 50 CFR parts 222 and 223.
13. 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. The Council, 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. The Council shall develop and analyze
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council
meetings. The Council 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 Council meeting. The Council'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) Council recommendation. After developing management actions and
receiving public testimony, the Council shall make a recommendation to
the Regional Administrator. The Council'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 the
Council 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) NMFS action. If the Council's recommendation includes
adjustments or additions to management measures and, if after reviewing
the Council's recommendation and supporting information:
(i) NMFS concurs with the Council'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 NMFS concurs with the Council'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 NMFS concurs with the Council recommendation, the measures
will be issued as a final rule and published in the Federal Register.
(iii) If NMFS does not concur, the Council 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]
14. 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) Council recommendation. See Sec. 648.107(a)(2)(i) through (iv).
(3) NMFS action. See Sec. 648.107(a)(i) through (iii).
(4) Emergency actions. See Sec. 648.107(a)(4).
(b) [Reserved]
15. 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) Council 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. 99-27921 Filed 10-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
