Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44421

THEFT RATES OF MODEL YEAR 1995 PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES STOLEN IN CALENDAR YEAR 1995—Continued

Manufacturer Make/model (line) Thefts 1995

Production

(mfgr’s)

1995

1995 (per

1,000 vehicles produced) theft

rate

205 ROLLS-ROYCE ........................................... SIL SPIRIT/SPUR/MULS ..................................... 0 132 0.0000

206 ROLLS-ROYCE ........................................... TURBO R ............................................................. 0 19 0.0000

207 VOLKSWAGEN ........................................... EUROVAN ............................................................ 0 1,814 0.0000

208 VOLVO ......................................................... LIMOUSINE .......................................................... 0 6 0.0000

Issued on: August 18, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–22263 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Chapter VI

[Docket No. 970728184–7184–01; I.D.

060997C]

Policy Guidelines for the Use of

Emergency Rules

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Policy guidelines for the use of

emergency rules.

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing revised

guidelines for the Regional Fishery

Management Councils (Councils) in

determining whether the use of an

emergency rule is justified under the

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The

guidelines were also developed to

provide the NMFS Regional

Administrators guidance in the

development and approval of

regulations to address events or

problems that require immediate action.

These revisions make the guidelines

consistent with the requirements of

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act, as amended by the Sustainable

Fisheries Act.

DATES: Effective August 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula N. Evans, NMFS, 301/713–2341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 5, 1992, NMFS issued

policy guidelines for the use of

emergency rules that were published in

the Federal Register on January 6, 1992

(57 FR 375). These guidelines were

consistent with the requirements of

section 305(c) of the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act. On

October 11, 1996, President Clinton

signed into law the Sustainable

Fisheries Act (Public Law 104–297),

which made numerous amendments to

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The

amendments significantly changed the

process under which fishery

management plans (FMPs), FMP

amendments, and most regulations are

reviewed and implemented. Because of

these changes, NMFS is revising the

policy guidelines for the preparation

and approval of emergency regulations.

Another change to section 305(c),

concerning interim measures to reduce

overfishing, will be addressed in

revisions to the national standards

guidelines.

Rationale for Emergency Action

Section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act provides for taking

emergency action with regard to any

fishery, but does not define the

circumstances that would justify such

emergency action. Section 305(c)

provides that:

1. The Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) may promulgate emergency

regulations to address an emergency if

the Secretary finds that an emergency

exists, without regard to whether a

fishery management plan exists for that

fishery;

2. The Secretary shall promulgate

emergency regulations to address the

emergency if the Council, by a

unanimous vote of the voting members,

requests the Secretary to take such

action;

3. The Secretary may promulgate

emergency regulations to address the

emergency if the Council, by less than

a unanimous vote of its voting members,

requests the Secretary to take such

action; and

4. The Secretary may promulgate

emergency regulations that respond to a

public health emergency or an oil spill.

Such emergency regulations may remain

in effect until the circumstances that

created the emergency no longer exist,

provided that the public has had an

opportunity to comment on the

regulation after it has been published,

and in the case of a public health

emergency, the Secretary of Health and

Human Services concurs with the

Secretary’s action.

Policy

The NOAA Office of General Counsel

has defined the phrase ‘‘unanimous

vote,’’ in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, to

mean the unanimous vote of a quorum

of the voting members of the Council

only. An abstention has no effect on the

unanimity of the quorum vote. The only

legal prerequisite for use of the

Secretary’s emergency authority is that

an emergency must exist. Congress

intended that emergency authority be

available to address conservation,

biological, economic, social, and health

emergencies. In addition, emergency

regulations may make direct allocations

among user groups, if strong

justification and the administrative

record demonstrate that, absent

emergency regulations, substantial harm

will occur to one or more segments of

the fishing industry. Controversial

actions with serious economic effects,

except under extraordinary

circumstances, should be done through

normal notice-and-comment

rulemaking.

The preparation or approval of

management actions under the

emergency provisions of section 305(c)

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be

limited to extremely urgent, special

circumstances where substantial harm

to or disruption of the resource, fishery,

or community would be caused in the

time it would take to follow standard

rulemaking procedures. An emergency

action may not be based on

administrative inaction to solve a longrecognized problem. In order to approve

an emergency rule, the Secretary must

have an administrative record justifying

emergency regulatory action and

demonstrating its compliance with the

national standards. In addition, the

preamble to the emergency rule should

indicate what measures could be taken
44422 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

or what alternative measures will be

considered to effect a permanent

solution to the problem addressed by

the emergency rule.

The process of implementing

emergency regulations limits

substantially the public participation in

rulemaking that Congress intended

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and

the Administrative Procedure Act. The

Councils and the Secretary must,

whenever possible, afford the full scope

of public participation in rulemaking. In

addition, an emergency rule may delay

the review of non-emergency rules,

because the emergency rule takes

precedence. Clearly, an emergency

action should not be a routine event.

Guidelines

NMFS provides the following

guidelines for the Councils to use in

determining whether an emergency

exists:

Emergency Criteria

For the purpose of section 305(c) of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the phrase

‘‘an emergency exists involving any

fishery’’ is defined as a situation that:

(1) Results from recent, unforeseen

events or recently discovered

circumstances; and

(2) Presents serious conservation or

management problems in the fishery;

and

(3) Can be addressed through

emergency regulations for which the

immediate benefits outweigh the value

of advance notice, public comment, and

deliberative consideration of the

impacts on participants to the same

extent as would be expected under the

normal rulemaking process.

Emergency Justification

If the time it would take to complete

notice-and-comment rulemaking would

result in substantial damage or loss to a

living marine resource, habitat, fishery,

industry participants or communities, or

substantial adverse effect to the public

health, emergency action might be

justified under one or more of the

following situations:

(1) Ecological—(A) to prevent

overfishing as defined in an FMP, or as

defined by the Secretary in the absence

of an FMP, or (B) to prevent other

serious damage to the fishery resource

or habitat; or

(2) Economic—to prevent significant

direct economic loss or to preserve a

significant economic opportunity that

otherwise might be foregone; or

(3) Social—to prevent significant

community impacts or conflict between

user groups; or

(4) Public health—to prevent

significant adverse effects to health of

participants in a fishery or to the

consumers of seafood products.

Dated: August 14, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–22094 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 285

[Docket No. 970702161–7197–02; I.D.

041097C]

RIN 0648–AJ93

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Fisheries; Import Restrictions

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS amends the regulations

governing the Atlantic highly migratory

species fisheries to prohibit importation

of Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT) and its

products in any form harvested by

vessels of Panama, Honduras, and

Belize. The amendments are necessary

to implement International Commission

for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

(ICCAT) recommendations designed to

help achieve the conservation and

management objectives for ABT

fisheries.

DATES: Effective August 20, 1997.

Restrictions on Honduras and Belize are

applicable August 20, 1997; restrictions

on Panama are applicable January 1,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the supporting

documentation are available from

Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory

Species Management Division, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,

MD 20910–3282.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Rogers or Jill Stevenson, 301–713–

2347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed

under the authority of the Atlantic

Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Section

971d(c)(1) of the ATCA authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to

issue regulations as may be necessary to

carry out the recommendations of the

ICCAT. The authority to issue

regulations has been delegated from the

Secretary to the Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, NOAA (AA).

Background information about the

need to implement trade restrictions

and the related ICCAT recommendation

was provided in the preamble to the

proposed rule (62 FR 38246, July 17,

1997) and is not repeated here. These

regulatory changes will further NMFS’

management objectives for the Atlantic

tuna fisheries.

Proposed Import Restrictions

In order to conserve and manage

North Atlantic bluefin tuna, ICCAT

adopted two recommendations at its

1996 meeting requiring its Contracting

Parties to take the appropriate measures

to prohibit the import of ABT and its

products in any form from Belize,

Honduras, and Panama. The first

recommendation was that its

Contracting Parties take appropriate

steps to prohibit the import of ABT and

its products in any form harvested by

vessels of Belize and Honduras as soon

as possible following the entry into

force of the ICCAT recommendation.

Accordingly, the prohibition with

respect to these countries is effective

August 20, 1997. The second

recommendation was that the

Contracting Parties take appropriate

steps to prohibit such imports harvested

by vessels of Panama effective January

1, 1998. This would allow Panama an

opportunity to present documentary

evidence to ICCAT, at its 1997 meeting

or before, that Panama has brought its

fishing practices for ABT into

consistency with ICCAT conservation

and management measures.

Accordingly, the prohibition with

respect to Panama will become effective

January 1, 1998.

Under current regulations, all ABT

shipments imported into the United

States are required to be accompanied

by a Bluefin Statistical Document (BSD).

Under this final rule, United States

Customs officials, using the BSD, will

deny entry into the customs territory of

the United States of shipments of ABT

harvested by vessels of Panama,

Honduras, and Belize and exported after

the effective dates of the trade

restrictions. Entry will not be denied for

any shipment in transit prior to the

effective date of trade restrictions.

Upon determination by ICCAT that

Panama, Honduras, and/or Belize has

brought its fishing practices into

consistency with ICCAT conservation

and management measures, NMFS will

publish a final rule in the Federal

Register that will remove import

restrictions for the relevant party. In