42474 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Welch at the Maine Field Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1033

South Main Street, Old Town, Maine

04468 (telephone 207/827–5938).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the

Service make a finding on whether a

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a

species presents substantial scientific or

commercial information to demonstrate

that the petitioned action may be

warranted. This finding is to be based

on all information available to the

Service at the time the finding is made.

To the maximum extent practicable, this

finding is to be made within 90 days of

receipt of the petition, and the finding

is to be published promptly in the

Federal Register. If the finding is that

substantial information was presented,

the Service also is required to promptly

commence a review of the status of the

species if one has not already been

initiated under the Service’s internal

candidate assessment process.

The Service has made a 90-day

finding on a petition to list the eastern

North America population of the

harlequin duck (Histrionicus

histrionicus) as endangered or

threatened. The petition, dated

September 21, 1995, was submitted by

the Northern Rockies Biodiversity

Project, Whitefish, Montana and by the

Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Boulder,

Colorado and was received by the

Service on September 25, 1995.

When it received the petition the

Service was under a moratorium on

listing actions as a result of the passage

of Public Law 104–6, which, along with

a series of continuing budget

resolutions, eliminated the Service’s

endangered species listing budget

through April, 1996. This suspension of

the listing program prohibited the

Service from processing the petition to

list the eastern North America

population of the harlequin duck. In

addition, the moratorium resulted in a

substantial backlog of listing actions,

which prompted the Service to issue

guidance instituting a biological

priority-based system for reducing the

listing backlog. This system placed

emergency listings and finalization of

proposed rules to list species ahead of

petition findings (61 FR 64475). For

these reasons, this 90-day finding was

made well over 90 days after the

petition was received.

The petitioners contend that the

eastern North America population of the

harlequin duck has undergone a

precipitous decline, that there are a

number of threats to the population

which will cause further declines, and

that, therefore, urgent protective

measures are necessary. Anecdotal

historical observations cited in the

petition and in the more recent

published literature suggest that the

species may have undergone a

precipitous decline in the late 1800’s

and early 1900’s and that a somewhat

less precipitous decline has continued

through the present time. The

petitioners described possible threats to

the population that are present

throughout all or a significant portion of

its range, including, but not limited to,

oil pollution and spills, land use

practices, illegal hunting, and

hydropower development. The

petitioners also discussed the

population’s vulnerability to

demographic factors and loss of genetic

diversity due to the low numbers of

individuals.

The Service has reviewed the petition,

the literature cited in the petition,

information in the Service’s files,

information submitted by State wildlife

agencies and other knowledgeable

individuals, and all other currently

available information. On the basis of

the best scientific and commercial

information available, the Service finds

that the petition presents substantial

information that listing this population

may be warranted.

Listing Factors and Basis for

Determination

A species can be determined to be

endangered or threatened due to one or

more of five factors described in section

4(a)(1) of the Act. These five factors are:

(1) Present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for

commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other

natural or manmade factors affecting its

continued existence. The Service has

found that there is substantial

information indicating that listing the

eastern North America population of the

harlequin duck as endangered or

threatened may be warranted due to one

or more of these five factors.

In reviewing the information, the

Service found that—(1) There is

substantial information to show that

numbers of the Harlequin ducks in the

eastern population have declined in the

past and a lesser level of decline may be

continuing; (2) there is substantial

information that shows that oil spills

have occured and could occur in the

future causing adverse impacts on the

population’s wintering areas.

Information Solicited

When it makes a finding that

substantial information exists to

indicate that listing a species may be

warranted, the Service is also required

to promptly commence a review of the

status of the species. The Service is

soliciting additional information

concerning the following: (1) Whether

the eastern North America population of

the harlequin duck is distinct from the

Pacific, Greenland, and Iceland

populations; (2) the size and

distribution of the eastern North

America population; (3) the status and

trends of breeding and wintering groups

of the eastern North America

population; and (4) whether or not the

eastern North America population is

endangered or threatened based on the

listing criteria described in section

4(a)(1) of the Act.

Author

The primary author of this document

is Debbie Mignogno, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center

Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035–

9589.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Jay L. Gerst,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–20672 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 970728182–7182–01; I.D.

071697A]

RIN 0648–AG16

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;

Financial Disclosure

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42475

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to revise the rules of conduct and

financial disclosure regulations

applicable to Regional Fishery

Management Council (Council)

nominees, appointees, and voting

members. The proposed revisions

would implement a provision of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) that was

amended by the Sustainable Fisheries

Act (SFA) in 1996. The new provision

prohibits Council members from voting

on matters that would have a significant

and predictable effect on a financial

interest disclosed in accordance with

existing regulations. The recusal

requirement will not become effective

until the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) promulgates final

regulations, which is scheduled to occur

by October 11, 1997.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Dr. Gary C. Matlock, F/SF, NMFS, 1315

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910. Comments regarding the

collection-of-information requirement

contained in this rule should be sent to

the above 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:

Margaret Frailey Hayes, Assistant

General Counsel for Fisheries, NOAA

Office of General Counsel, 301–713–

2231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the 1986 amendments to the

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Public Law 99–659),

Congress created a requirement for

voting members and Executive Directors

of each Council to disclose any financial

interest they held in the harvesting,

processing, or marketing of fishery

resources under the jurisdiction of their

respective Council. The financial

interests of the member included those

held by that member, the spouse, minor

child, or partner of the member, and any

organization (other than the Council) in

which the member was serving as an

officer, director, trustee, partner, or

employee. If they disclosed their

financial interests as required by the

statute, the amendments exempted

Council members and Executive

Directors from the provisions of 18

U.S.C. 208, which generally prohibit

persons from making decisions on

behalf of the Federal Government

during their employment when a

conflict of interest arises. If a member

did not comply with the financial

disclosure requirements, the

prohibitions and penalties of 18 U.S.C.

208 would apply.

Congress intended that Council

members could have a direct financial

interest in fisheries. Governors are

required to nominate persons who are

‘‘knowledgeable’’ or ‘‘experienced’’

regarding the conservation and

management or commercial or

recreational harvest of the fishery

resources within the jurisdiction of the

Council (16 U.S.C. 302(b)(2)(A)).

Congress also believed, however, that

the public has a right to know of any

voting Council member’s financial

interests in fishery matters under the

purview of a Council. Council members

could, therefore, participate in matters

of general public concern that were

likely to have a direct and predictable

effect on their financial interests in

harvesting, processing, or marketing

activities in a fishery if such interests

were disclosed on the member’s

statement of financial interests. Even if

their financial interests were reported,

however, they could not participate in

a particular matter primarily of

individual concern, such as a contract,

in which they had a financial interest

under rules now codified at 50 CFR

600.225(b)(8)(i).

On October 11, 1996, the President

signed into law the SFA, which made

numerous amendments to the

Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801

et seq.). This proposed rule would

amend 50 CFR 600.225, Rules of

Conduct, and 50 CFR 600.235, Financial

Disclosure, to implement the SFA

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens

Act concerning recusal of Council

members from votes involving matters

in which they have a financial interest.

The proposed regulations would

remove 50 CFR 600.225(b)(8)(ii), which

prohibits a Council member from voting

on any matter of general public concern

that is likely to have a ‘‘direct and

predictable effect’’ on a member’s

financial interest unless it has been

disclosed. That language would be

replaced with new § 600.235(c),

described below under ‘‘Financial

Disclosure.’’

The proposed rules would retain the

first sentence in 50 CFR 600.225(b)(8),

which prohibits any Council member

from participating in a ‘‘particular

matter primarily of individual concern’’

in which he or she has a financial

interest. Examples of such matters are

contracts with the member’s employer,

grants to the member’s academic

institution, and management measures

that affect only the member’s business

and a few other fishery participants.

Section 302(j) of the MagnusonStevens Act requires the disclosure by

‘‘affected individuals’’ of financial

interests in any harvesting, processing,

or marketing activity that is being, or

will be undertaken, within any fishery

under the jurisdiction of the

individual’s Council. The financial

interests include those of the affected

individual’s spouse, minor child, or

partner, or any organization other than

the Council in which the individual is

serving as an officer, director, trustee,

partner, or employee.

The SFA defines ‘‘affected

individuals’’ as persons nominated by a

Governor, and voting members

appointed by the Secretary of Commerce

from among those nominees, under

section 302(b)(2) of the MagnusonStevens Act. The term also includes the

Indian representative on the Pacific

Council, if he or she is not subject to

disclosure or recusal requirements

under Indian tribal government laws.

Voting members of Councils who are

excluded from the definition are

Regional Administrators of NMFS, and

the principal state officials and

designees named by Governors under

section 302(b)(1) of the MagnusonStevens Act. Council Executive

Directors, who previously had been

subject to the financial disclosure

reporting requirements, are no longer

‘‘affected individuals.’’

Financial Disclosure

The SFA’s most significant revision to

section 302(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act is the addition of a provision that

prohibits an affected individual from

voting on a Council decision that would

have a significant and predictable effect

on the affected individual’s financial

interests in harvesting, processing, or

marketing activities. That effect exists if

there is a close causal link between the

Council decision and an ‘‘expected and

substantially disproportionate benefit’’

to the financial interest of the affected

individual relative to the financial

interests of other participants in the

same gear type or sector of the fishery.

This rule would define ‘‘expected and

substantially disproportionate benefit’’

as a quantifiable positive or negative

impact with regard to a matter likely to

affect a fishery or sector of the fishery

in which the affected individual has a

significant interest, as indicated by (1) a

greater than 10 percent interest in the

total harvest of the fishery or sector of

the fishery in question, (2) a greater than

10 percent interest in the marketing or
42476 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

processing of the total harvest of the

fishery or sector of the fishery in

question, or (3) full or partial ownership

of more than 10 percent of the vessels

using the same gear type within the

fishery or sector of the fishery in

question.

We interpret the statutory term

‘‘benefit’’ to include both positive and

negative impacts on the member’s

financial interest. The purpose of the

1996 amendments was to address real or

perceived conflicts of interest, i.e.,

situations where Council members

might have a greater incentive to protect

their own financial interests than to

consider the welfare of all fishery

participants and the national interest. In

this context, actual or perceived

conflicts of interest occur when a

member’s income or investment is

threatened, just as much as when they

may be augmented. Avoiding a negative

is as advantageous as gaining a positive.

To limit ‘‘benefit’’ to positive impacts

would unfairly bias the Council system

toward preservation of the status quo. If

members who stood to gain from a

proposed Council action could not vote,

but members who might suffer a loss

from the same action could do so,

proposals for change would be

handicapped.

The choice of a particular percentage

as indicative of a ‘‘significant’’ interest

is a difficult one. The Councils manage

fisheries as small as seven vessels and

as large as thousands of vessels. The

agency is considering a tiered approach,

with different percentage indicators for

different-sized sectors of the fishing

industry, but has been unable to

construct a workable model. We invite

comments and specific suggestions on

dealing with this issue.

Affected individuals who have

financial interests in businesses or notfor-profit organizations closely related

to harvesting, processing, or marketing

activities are covered by section 302(j)

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and must

disclose those interests. Examples are

suppliers of bait, manufacturers of

fishing gear, business or economic

consultants to the fishing industry, and

representatives of environmental

organizations that address fisheries

issues. Because the effects of Council

decisions on this type of financial

interest are unlikely to be ‘‘significant or

predictable,’’ we do not foresee recusals

by such individuals under proposed

§ 600.235(c); however, such individuals

could not participate in a ‘‘particular

matter primarily of individual concern’’

under § 600.225(b)(8).

Under the proposed rule, an affected

individual who is a representative of an

association of fishermen, processors, or

dealers would be required to disclose, in

addition to his/her own interests, the

financial interests of the association in

harvesting, processing, or marketing

activities that are or will be undertaken

within any fishery under the

jurisdiction of his or her Council. The

financial interests of the association

would be considered as separate from

the financial interests of its individual

members. A vote on a Council decision

that might have a significant and

predictable effect on the members of the

association would not be considered to

have a significant and predictable effect

on the financial interests of the

representative.

Procedures

An affected individual would be able

to recuse him or herself by simply

announcing an intent not to vote on a

Council decision that is likely to have

a direct and predictable effect on that

individual’s financial interest.

The proposed regulations would

provide that, if an affected individual

has a significant interest that prohibits

him or her from voting, he or she may

still participate in Council deliberations

on that matter.

The proposed regulations would set

out the process for raising the issue of

whether a Council decision would have

a significant and predictable effect on an

individual’s financial interest, the

information that would be considered in

making that determination, and

procedures for review of a

determination. The proposed

regulations would specify the NOAA

General Counsel attorney advising the

Council as the designated official who

would determine whether the affected

individual must recuse him or herself.

The determination by the NOAA

attorney would be based upon the

information contained in the member’s

financial disclosure report and any

other reliable and probative information

provided in writing. All information

provided would be made part of the

public record for the decision.

If the NOAA attorney determines that

the member may not vote, the member

may state for the record how he or she

would have voted.

Any Council member would be able

to file a request for review of the

determination to the NOAA General

Counsel within 10 days of the

determination. The member whose vote

is at issue would have an opportunity to

respond to such request for review by

another Council member. The NOAA

General Counsel would issue a decision

within 30 days from the date of receipt

of the request for review. As specified

in section 302(j)(7)(E) of the MagnusonStevens Act, if the General Counsel’s

decision reverses a recusal

determination, that decision may not be

treated as cause to invalidate or

reconsider the Council’s action.

The proposed regulations would

implement the part of section 307(1) of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act that makes it

unlawful for an affected individual to

knowingly and willfully fail to disclose

or to falsely disclose any financial

interest required to be disclosed or to

knowingly vote on a Council decision in

violation of section 302(j). The penalties

for violation include removal of the

affected individual from the Council

and/or a civil penalty of up to $100,000

per violation.

Classification

This rule has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and 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.

This proposed rule would implement

statutory provisions of the SFA relative

to the disclosure of financial interests of

Council nominees, appointees, and

members in harvesting, processing, or

marketing activities that are or will be

undertaken in fisheries under the

jurisdiction of the individual’s Council.

Certain Council members may be

required to recuse themselves from

voting on a Council decision that would

have a significant and predictable effect

on a financial interest disclosed in

accordance with these regulations. This

proposed rule would have no effect on

the conduct of business of any small

entities. As such, no Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis has been prepared.

This rule contains a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the

PRA. The financial disclosure form that

must be completed by affected

individuals has been approved by OMB

under control number 0648–0192.

Public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 0.58 hours per response,

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completining and

reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

OMB and NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42477

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.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing

vessels, Foreign relations,

Intergovernmental relations, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Penalties, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Statistics.

Dated: August 1, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS

ACT PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 600

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801

et seq.

2. In § 600.225, the last sentence in

paragraph (b)(4) is removed, and

paragraph (b)(8) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 600.225 Rules of conduct.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(8) No Council member may

participate personally and substantially

as a member through decision, approval,

disapproval, recommendation, the

rendering of advice, investigation, or

otherwise in a particular matter

primarily of individual concern, such as

a contract, in which he or she has a

financial interest.

3. Section 600.235 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 600.235 Financial disclosure.

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this

section:

(1) ‘‘Affected individual’’ means an

individual who is—

(i) Nominated by the Governor of a

state or appointed by the Secretary to

serve as a voting member of a Council

in accordance with section 302(b)(2) of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act; or

(ii) A representative of an Indian tribe

appointed to the Pacific Council by the

Secretary under section 302(b)(5) of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act who is not

subject to disclosure and recusal

requirements under the laws of an

Indian tribal government.

(2) ‘‘Designated official’’ means an

attorney designated by the NOAA

General Counsel.

(b) Reporting. (1) The MagnusonStevens Act requires the disclosure by

each affected individual of any financial

interest of the affected individual in any

harvesting, processing, or marketing

activity, or related industry, that is

being, or will be, undertaken within any

fishery under the jurisdiction of the

individual’s Council, and of any such

financial interest of the affected

individual’s spouse, minor child,

partner, or any organization (other than

the Council) in which that individual is

serving as an officer, director, trustee,

partner, or employee. The information

required to be reported must be

disclosed on NOAA Form 88–195,

‘‘Statement of Financial Interests for Use

by Voting Members and Nominees of

Regional Fishery Management

Councils’’ (Financial Interest Form), or

such other form as the Secretary may

prescribe.

(2) The report must be filed by each

nominee for Secretarial appointment

with the Assistant Administrator by

April 15 or, if nominated after March

15, 1 month after nomination by the

Governor. A seated voting member

appointed by the Secretary must file a

Financial Interest Form with the

Executive Director of the appropriate

Council within 45 days of taking office;

must file an update of his or her

statement with the Executive Director of

the appropriate Council within 30 days

of the time any such financial interest

is acquired or substantially changed by

the affected individual or the affected

individual’s spouse, minor child,

partner, or any organization (other than

the Council) in which that individual is

serving as an officer, director, trustee,

partner, or employee; and must

update his or her form annually and file

that update with the Executive Director

of the appropriate Council by February

1 of each year.

(3) The Executive Director must, in a

timely manner, provide copies of the

financial disclosure forms and all

updates to the NMFS Regional

Administrator for the geographic area

concerned, the Regional Attorney who

advises the Council, the Department of

Commerce Assistant General Counsel

for Administration, and the NMFS

Office of Sustainable Fisheries. The

completed financial interest forms will

be kept on file in the office of the NMFS

Regional Administrator for the

geographic area concerned and at the

Council offices, and will be made

available for public inspection at such

offices during normal office hours.

(4) Councils must retain the

disclosure form for each affected

individual for at least 5 years after the

expiration of that individual’s last term.

(c) Restrictions on voting. (1) No

affected individual may vote on any

Council decision that would have a

significant and predictable effect on a

financial interest disclosed in his/her

report filed under paragraph (b) of this

section.

(2) As used in this section, a Council

decision will be considered to have a

‘‘significant and predictable effect on a

financial interest’’ if there is a close

causal link between the decision and an

expected and substantially

disproportionate benefit to the financial

interest of any affected individual or the

affected individual’s spouse, minor

child, partner, or any organization

(other than the Council) in which that

individual is serving as an officer,

director, trustee, partner, or employee,

relative to the financial interests of other

participants in the same gear type or

sector of the fishery.

(3) ‘‘Expected and substantially

disproportionate benefit’’ means a

quantifiable positive or negative impact

with regard to a matter likely to affect

a fishery or sector of the fishery in

which the affected individual has a

significant interest, as indicated by:

(i) A greater than 10 percent interest

in the total harvest of the fishery or

sector of the fishery in question;

(ii) A greater than 10 percent interest

in the marketing or processing of the

total harvest of the fishery or sector of

the fishery in question; or

(iii) Full or partial ownership of more

than 10 percent of the vessels using the

same gear type within the fishery or

sector of the fishery in question.

(d) Voluntary recusal. An affected

individual who believes that a Council

decision would have a significant and

predictable effect on that individual’s

financial interest disclosed under

paragraph (b) of this section may, at any

time before a vote is taken, announce to

the Council an intent not to vote on the

decision.

(e) Participation in deliberations.

Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this

section, an affected individual may

participate in Council deliberations

relating to the decision after notifying

the Council of the voting recusal and

identifying the financial interest that

would be affected.

(f) Requests for determination. (1) At

the request of an affected individual, the

designated official shall determine for

the record whether a Council decision

would have a significant and
42478 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

predictable effect on that individual’s

financial interest. The determination

will be based upon a review of the

information contained in the

individual’s financial disclosure form

and any other reliable and probative

information provided in writing. All

information considered will be made

part of the public record for the

decision. The affected individual may

request a determination by notifying the

designated official—

(i) Within a reasonable time before the

Council meeting at which the Council

decision will be made; or

(ii) During a Council meeting before a

Council vote on the decision.

(2) The designated official may

initiate a determination on the basis

of—

(i) His or her knowledge of the fishery

and the financial interests disclosed by

an affected individual; or

(ii) Written and signed information

received within a reasonable time before

a Council meeting or, if the issue could

not have been anticipated before the

meeting, during a Council meeting

before a Council vote on the decision.

(3) At the beginning of each Council

meeting, or during a Council meeting at

any time reliable and probative

information is received, the designated

official shall announce the receipt of

information relevant to a determination

concerning recusal, the nature of that

information, and the identity of the

submitter of such information.

(4) If the designated official

determines that the affected individual

may not vote, the individual may state

for the record how he or she would have

voted. However, a reversal of that

determination under paragraph (g) of

this section may not be treated as cause

for invalidation or reconsideration of

the Council’s decision.

(g) Review of determinations. (1) Any

Council member may file a written

request to the NOAA General Counsel

for review of the designated official’s

determination. A request for review

must be received within 10 days of the

determination.

(2) A request must include a full

statement in support of the review,

including a concise statement as to why

the Council’s decision did or did not

have a significantly disproportionate

benefit to the financial interest of the

affected individual relative to the

financial interests of other participants

in the same gear type or sector of the

fishery, and why the designated

official’s determination should be

reversed.

(3) If the request for review is from a

Council member other than the affected

individual whose vote is at issue, the

requester must provide a copy of the

request to the affected individual at the

same time it is submitted to the NOAA

General Counsel. The affected

individual may submit a response to the

NOAA General Counsel within 10 days

from the date of his/her receipt of the

request for review.

(4) The NOAA General Counsel must

complete the review and issue a

decision within 30 days from the date

of receipt of the request for review. The

NOAA General Counsel will limit the

review to the record before the

designated official at the time of the

determination, the request, and any

response.

(h) Exemption from other statutes.

The provisions of 18 U.S.C. 208,

regarding conflicts of interest, do not

apply to an affected individual who is

in compliance with the requirements of

this section for filing a financial

disclosure report.

(i) Violations and penalties. It is

unlawful for an affected individual to

knowingly and willfully fail to disclose,

or to falsely disclose, any financial

interest as required by this section, or to

knowingly vote on a Council decision in

violation of this section. In addition to

the penalties applicable under

§ 600.735, a violation of this provision

may result in removal of the affected

individual from Council membership.

[FR Doc. 97–20851 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 970730185–7185–01; I.D.

070797B]

RIN 0648–AJ13

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Red

Snapper Management Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule, request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to implement the provisions of a

regulatory amendment prepared by the

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council (Council) in accordance with

framework procedures for adjusting

management measures of the Fishery

Management Plan for the Reef Fish

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP).

For the red snapper fishery in the Gulf

of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ), the regulatory amendment

would: Change the opening date for the

1997 fall commercial fishing season

from September 15 to September 2;

restrict the harvest of red snapper

during the 1997 fall commercial season

to an initial period of September 2 to

September 15 and, thereafter, to a

monthly period from the first to the 15th

of each month until the commercial

fishery is closed (all openings and

closings would be at noon on the date

indicated); establish a recreational

fishery quota; and authorize the

Regional Administrator, Southeast

Region, NMFS, to close the recreational

fishery for red snapper in the EEZ when

the recreational quota is reached or is

projected to be reached. The intended

effect of this proposed rule is to

maximize the economic benefits from

the red snapper resource within the

constraints of the rebuilding program for

this overfished resource and to comply

with a requirement of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act) that separate recreational and

commercial fishing quotas be

established for Gulf red snapper that

result in fishery closures when quotas

are taken.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before August 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule must be sent to Robert Sadler,

Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721

Executive Center Drive N., St.

Petersburg, FL 33702.

Requests for copies of the framework

regulatory amendment, which includes

an environmental assessment, a

regulatory impact review (RIR), and an

addendum, should be sent to the Gulf of

Mexico Fishery Management Council,

3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite

1000, Tampa, FL 33619–2266; Phone:

813–228–2815; Fax: 813–225–7015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Sadler, 813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef

fish fishery in the EEZ of the Gulf of

Mexico is managed under the FMP. The

FMP was prepared by the Council and

is implemented under the authority of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act by

regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The Council has proposed adjusted

management measures (a regulatory

amendment) for the Gulf red snapper

fishery for NMFS’ review, approval, and

implementation. These measures were

developed and submitted to NMFS

under the terms of the FMP’s framework

procedure for annual adjustments in