[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 146 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18596]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 1, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 605
[Docket No. 930824-4203; I.D. 062194G]
RIN 0648-AG91
Regional Fishery Management Council Guidelines; Conduct of
Meetings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS adopts as final, without change, an interim final rule
that revises the guidelines governing voting procedures of the Regional
Fishery Management Councils (Councils) established by the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). The intent of
this rule is to ensure that NMFS understands the fishery management
measures in motions on which the Councils vote to request action by the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and to ensure that the exact Council
vote on emergency actions becomes part of the record or minutes of the
meeting.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David S. Crestin, Deputy Director,
Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, (301) 713-2334.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Through an interim final rule published September 27, 1993 (58 FR
50288), NMFS amended 50 CFR 605.24(a)(3)(i) guidelines on conduct of
meetings of the Councils to require that, prior to a vote on measures
subject to Secretarial consideration, each motion must be recorded in
writing and be visible to each Council member and the public. Two
additional actions that require a vote by the Councils, Council
requests for amendment to regulations implementing a fishery management
plan and recommendations for responding to an emergency, were also
included under this requirement. Rationale for the regulatory
amendments was provided in the preamble to the interim final rule and
is not repeated here. Comments were requested.
Comments and Responses
Comments were received from four of the eight Councils, and one
trade association. Responses follow.
Comment 1. Three of the Councils felt it unnecessary to codify the
requirements that motions subject to Secretarial consideration be
recorded in writing and visible to each Council member and the public;
two stated that the problems addressed through this rulemaking are
infrequent enough that a less formal approach would be adequate. They
also expressed concern that the new voting requirements will be
administratively burdensome and slow the normal meeting process. The
fourth Council commenting had no objection to the procedures, stating
that the Council's current procedures are consistent with the new
requirements. None of the four Councils commenting objected to the
requirement that the exact Council vote on emergency actions must
become part of the record or minutes of the meeting.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the voting procedures, as amended,
are overly burdensome. As stated in the interim final rule, each
Council may determine which of several procedures it will employ. The
requirements are not intended to encumber the Council process. Routine
procedural matters, such as those not requiring Secretarial review and
approval, do not require motions to be in writing; only those actions
where a Council is voting to submit an action to the Secretary for
consideration must be recorded in visible form at the time of the vote.
Although NMFS concedes that problems resulting from the former
voting procedures were infrequent, such problems, when they arise, can
have serious consequences for the agency, the Councils, and the public.
NMFS believes that ensuring that motions are clear to Council members,
the public, and the Secretary is important enough to justify any small
administrative burden that may result. Furthermore, all four of the
Councils commenting indicated that the new procedures are either
consistent with existing Council practices, or that the Councils are,
or soon will be equipped to display motions before the Council and
public before votes are taken.
Comment 2. The trade association supported both measures, but
suggested that all actions taken prior to a final vote also be made
available to the public, and that initial motions, as well as final,
amended motions, be available in writing.
Regarding votes on emergency measures, the association proposed
that the record also reflect potential conflicts of interest of the
voting Council members. The association would prefer a requirement that
a potential conflict of interest be disclosed by the Council member
prior to the vote, but, at a minimum, that it be made part of the
formal record.
Response: NMFS agrees, in principle, that there should be maximum
public disclosure of the deliberative and decisionmaking process.
However, NMFS also realizes that the Council process, because it
includes participation from multiple interests and often involves
complex issues, can be time-consuming. NMFS concludes that, while the
Councils are encouraged to make all materials at public meetings as
available and clear to the public as possible, to require that all
motions be put before the public in writing could be unnecessarily
burdensome to the Councils and not in the best public interest, in
terms of administrative efficiency.
With respect to the comments on conflicts of interest, NMFS has
taken steps to address this by expanding the financial disclosure forms
for members to include fishery participated in, gear type used, and
product form produced. In addition, NMFS published an interim final
rule on March 11, 1994 (59 FR 11557), that requires annual updates of
disclosure forms and makes information in required financial
disclosures of Councils' nominees, voting members, and Executive
Directors more readily available for public inspection at all Council
meetings, as well as at Council offices. The intent is to disclose
possible financial conflicts of interest to the public. Because NMFS
believes these actions will adequately address the commenter's
concerns, no change has been made to this final rule.
Teleconference Meetings
NMFS notes that Councils occasionally hold meetings via
teleconference. In the case of a telephonic vote, NMFS believes it is
adequate if someone on the telephone call clearly reads the motion
aloud immediately prior to the vote, such that everyone on the call
understands the wording of the motion being voted on. The motion would
then become part of the written record of the call/vote, which would
also include the exact vote of the Council members.
Classification
As a rule of agency procedure or practice, under the provisions of
section 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the
prior notice and opportunity for public comment provisions of section
553 of the APA do not apply and this rule can be, and is being made,
immediately effective. This rule has been determined to be not
significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 26, 1994.
Nancy Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
PART 605--GUIDELINES FOR COUNCIL OPERATIONS/ADMINISTRATION
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 50 CFR part 605 that was
published at 58 FR 50288 on September 27, 1993, is adopted as final
without change.
[FR Doc. 94-18596 Filed 7-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
