48990 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[Docket No. 970903224–7224–01; I.D.

082297A]

RIN 0648–AK40

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Administrative Procedures Applicable

to the Management of Highly Migratory

Species

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed procedural guidelines.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to revise the

administrative procedures it follows to

prepare and issue highly migratory

species (HMS) fishery management

plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments

(FMP amendments) and implementing

regulations for the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf

of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea in

response to recent amendments to the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The proposed

revised procedures include

opportunities for involvement by the

public, the Department of State (DOS),

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the

Fishery Management Councils (FMCs),

the International Committee for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

Advisory Committee (IAC), the ICCAT

Commissioners, and advisory panels

(APs) appointed under the MSFCMA

and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act

(ATCA).

DATES: Comments are invited and must

be received on or before October 15,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Questions or comments

regarding the proposed revised HMS

procedures may be mailed or faxed to

Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory

Species Management Division, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910

(fax: 301–713–1917). Copies of this

notice are also available at this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz

Lauck or Jill Stevenson, Highly

Migratory Species Management

Division, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, NMFS, Telephone: (301) 713–

2347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Background

On November 28, 1990, the President

signed into law the Fishery

Conservation Amendments of 1990

(Pub. L. 101–627), which amended the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Pub. L. 101–627

gave the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) the authority to manage

tuna, as of January 1, 1992, in the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and

Caribbean Sea under authority of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1811).

Pub. L. 101–627 also transferred from

the Councils to the Secretary, effective

November 28, 1990, the management

authority for the other highly migratory

species in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of

Mexico, and Caribbean Sea (16 U.S.C.

1854(f)(3)). In 1996, the MagnusonStevens Act was further amended to

require APs of balanced representation

to be created to assist in the

development of FMPs and FMP

amendments for Atlantic HMS.

Under the proposed revised

procedures, the DOS, USCG, FMCs, IAC,

and ICCAT Commissioners (Consulting

Parties) would be consulted during the

development of FMPs. They would be

sent draft FMP documents, including

the draft FMP or amendment, proposed

rule, and draft EIS. The IAC and FMCs

would participate in the HMS APs and,

as such, would be consulted during

several phases of the HMS process.

B. Purpose and Scope

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, at 16

U.S.C. 1854(f)(3), requires that the

Secretary undertake the following three

major categories of actions regarding the

conservation and management of HMS:

1. Identification of research and

information priorities, including

observer requirements and necessary

data collection and analysis;

2. Preparation and amendment of

FMPs; and

3. Diligent pursuit, through

international management entities (such

as ICCAT), of international fishery

management measures.

This document proposes the process

that NMFS would follow in undertaking

the second category of actions—

preparing, issuing, and implementing

through final regulations HMS FMPs

and amendments. NMFS emphasizes

that this process is not intended to

address the other two categories of

actions except in general terms where

they affect the development and

implementation of fishery management

measures for HMS. The process

proposed herein is designed to address

the statutory planning and rulemaking

requirements of both the MagnusonStevens Act and the ATCA regarding

management of Atlantic HMS. The

process for preparing and amending

FMPs for HMS described in this

document incorporates ATCA

requirements so that they are met

whenever the United States acts to

implement ICCAT recommendations

through the FMP and its implementing

regulations.

C. Highly Migratory Species

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, at 16

U.S.C. 1802(14), defines the term

‘‘highly migratory species’’ as tuna

species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and

Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes

(Istiophorus spp.), and swordfish

(Xiphias gladius). Further, the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, at 16 U.S.C.

1802(27), defines the term ‘‘tuna

species’’ as albacore tuna (Thunnus

alalunga), bigeye tuna (Thunnus

obesus), bluefin tuna (Thunnus

thynnus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus

pelamis), and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus

albacares).

D. Preparation and Amendment of

FMPs

As delegated by the Secretary, the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

NOAA (Assistant Administrator) would

issue FMPs or FMP amendments for

HMS in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of

Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. The

Magnuson-Stevens Act directs the

Secretary to undertake the following

actions in preparing and amending

FMPs for HMS:

1. Conduct public hearings at

appropriate times and places;

2. Establish an AP balanced in its

composition to fairly represent the

commercial fishing involved for each

FMP to be prepared or amended;

3. Consult with and consider the

comments and views of affected

Councils, the ICCAT Commissioners,

the IAC, and the AP;

4. Evaluate the probable effects of

conservation and management measures

on affected fishery participants, and

minimize, to the extent practicable, any

disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in

relation to foreign competitors; and

5. Review, on a continuing basis (and

promptly whenever a recommendation

pertaining to fishing for HMS has been

made under a relevant international

fishery agreement), and revise as

appropriate, the conservation and

management measures contained in the

FMP.

6. Pursue comparable international

fishery management measures with

respect to HMS.

The relationship between the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA is not

clearly addressed in either law. This

document proposes a planning and

rulemaking process for managing HMS

species that NMFS believes to be

consistent with both the Magnuson-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices 48991

Stevens Act and ATCA. Whenever

practicable, NMFS will issue one

regulation under the authority of both

statutes. NMFS does not intend that this

process, primarily administrative in

character, will resolve conflicts and

ambiguities between the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA.

II. Process for the Management of HMS

This document proposes the

establishment of a general process for

the preparation and implementation of:

(1) FMPs; (2) FMP amendments; and (3)

international management measures for

HMS as required by the MagnusonStevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and

the ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. This

process would be followed by NMFS in

order to fulfill the Secretary’s

responsibilities for managing HMS

under these statutes.

Under the provisions of the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA,

several possible regulatory scenarios

exist for HMS management, including:

(1) An FMP that includes no

international fishery management

measures (e.g., those species for which

ICCAT has made no recommendations

to date, such as oceanic sharks); (2) an

FMP that includes international fishery

management measures authorized by

and consistent with both MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA requirements;

and (3) international fishery

management measures, based upon

ICCAT recommendations, implemented

under ATCA but not yet included

within an FMP (e.g., Atlantic tuna

regulations promulgated under ATCA

before preparation of and inclusion in

an FMP). The proposed HMS

management process addresses

primarily the first two of these

alternatives. The process for

promulgating Atlantic tuna regulations

under ATCA does not require as many

steps or as much time as is required for

preparation of an FMP or FMP

amendment under the MagnusonStevens Act; however, it is NMFS’’

intent to prepare an FMP (or FMPs) for

Atlantic tunas. The rulemaking process

for implementation of ICCAT

recommendations that would be

implemented by regulations in the

absence of an FMP is discussed in this

notice in abbreviated form. This

particular rulemaking process would be

used to implement ICCAT

recommendations for an interim period

until FMPs are prepared for all HMS

designated by the Magnuson-Stevens

Act, or until any existing HMS FMPs are

amended to incorporate ICCAT

recommendations.

HMS Management Process—Outline

1. Phase 1—Planning and Scoping

a. Publish Notice-of-intent to prepare

FMP or FMP amendment and

(Environmental Impact

Statement(EIS)/Environmental

Assessment (EA)

b. Draft issues/options statement

c. Hold AP meeting

d. Hold scoping meetings with the

public

2. Phase 2—Preparation and Review of

Draft Documents

a. Prepare draft FMP amendment, EIS,

proposed rule

b. International management

recommendations

c. Solicit comments from Consulting

Parties

d. Hold AP meeting

3. Phase 3—Preparation of Proposed

FMP or Amendment and Proposed

Regulations and Public Review

a. Notice of availability to the public

and proposed regulations published

b. Public hearings

c. Hold AP meeting to consider

comments

4. Phase 4—Preparation of Final

Documents and Final Regulations

Prepare final rule, FMP

amendment, and Final EIS (FEIS)

5. Phase 5—Approval and

Implementation

a. Publish final rule

b. Distribute FEIS and FMP

amendment

6. Phase 6—Continuing and

Contingency Fishery Management

a. Hold AP meetings as needed

b. Framework management measures

or FMP amendments

c. Take emergency actions, if

necessary, for contingency fishery

management

Information Distribution/

Recordkeeping/Comments

The NMFS Office of Sustainable

Fisheries would notify fishery interests

and FMCs of forthcoming management

actions regarding HMS. A ‘‘facsimile

transmission list’’ of affected FMCs,

ICCAT Commissioners and Advisory

Committee members, AP members,

Federal and state agencies, various

fishery interests, and requesting

members of the public presently is

maintained by that Office to send

advance notices of forthcoming actions

(to add your name to the ‘‘FAX

NETWORK’’, call 301–713–2347). The

list would be maintained under the

proposed procedures. Also, notices of

forthcoming hearings, meetings, public

review and comment periods, and

regulatory actions would be mailed to

all who request this service. Copies of

important draft, revised, and final

documents (e.g., FMPs and

amendments) would be mailed to those

requesting such documents. Up-to-date

quota monitoring and fishery regulation

information is presently and would

continue to be available on a telephone

information hotline (301–713–1279,

508–281–9305). This information as it

relates to tunas can presently be

accessed and would continue to be

accessible through the Atlantic tunas

automated telephone permitting system

(1–888-USA-TUNA) and on the Internet

(http://www.usatuna.com).

Comments received by NMFS during

all phases of the HMS process would be

considered to determine the need for

initiation of rulemaking or changes in

the FMP, FMP amendment, or

supporting documents. NMFS would

maintain a record of all public meetings

during all phases of FMP or FMP

amendment development. The record

would summarize the discussions

between NMFS representatives and

constituents (including the AP) and

would be included in NMFS’

administrative record supporting the

development and implementation of the

subject FMP or amendment.

Consistent with the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553,

public comments received on proposed

regulations (Phase 3) would be

summarized and addressed in the

preamble to the final regulations (Phase

5) to implement the FMP or

amendment. New public comments

regarding the draft final (supplemental)

environmental impact statement

(F(S)EIS) (i.e., comments regarding new

or different issues not previously

expressed during the Phase 3 public

comment period on the draft

(supplemental) environmental impact

statement (D(S)EIS) would be

summarized and addressed in the

F(S)EIS (Phase 4) and filed for in the

final public review under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

(Phase 5). Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) regulations require that

an agency preparing a FEIS or final

supplemental EIS (FSEIS) must: Assess

and consider public comments, both

individually and collectively, received

on the D(S)EIS; respond to such

comments by one of several means; and

provide a summary of the comments

and responses in the F(S)EIS. In this

case, these comments would include

those received on the D(S)EIS in Phase

2 and on the draft F(S)EIS in Phase 4.

1. Phase 1—Planning and Scoping

The objectives of Phase 1 would be to:

(1) Determine the nature and scope of

the resource and management issues for
48992 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices

the subject fishery that need to be

addressed and identify alternative

management approaches for their

resolution; (2) provide the AP and the

general public an opportunity to

communicate views and concerns early

in the rulemaking process; (3) develop

a clear and concise written summary,

for the species under consideration, of

the major fishery management issues

and options for addressing them (this

document is referred to as the ‘‘issues/

options statement’’); and (4) fulfill the

‘‘scoping’’ action requirements for

environmental analyses prepared under

NEPA (refer to section 1501.7 of 40 CFR

parts 1500–1508, the CEQ regulations

for implementing NEPA, and to NOAA

Administrative Order 216–6, NOAA’s

guidance for compliance with NEPA).

a. Notice-of-intent to prepare FMP or

FMP Amendment and EIS. NMFS would

publish in the Federal Register a noticeof-intent (notice) regarding FMPs and

amendments. The notice would serve to

notify the public of any scheduled

public scoping meetings and would

contain: (1) A statement of NMFS’ intent

to prepare and implement an FMP or

amendment, promulgate new or amend

existing regulations, and prepare, if

applicable, an EIS or supplemental EIS

(SEIS); (2) appropriate information

concerning the availability of any

relevant issues/options statement (see

section b below); (3) a preliminary

schedule of events; (4) date(s), time(s)

and place(s) of the scheduled scoping

meeting(s); and (5) a statement of

whether or not the FMP or amendment

would include any measures intended

to implement fishery management

recommendations of ICCAT (or any

other international fishery management

body). If necessary, the above

information may be divided and

published by more than one notice.

If NMFS is preparing an EIS or SEIS

in support of the FMP or amendment,

NMFS would include within the noticeof-intent, to be published before

beginning the scoping process, those

items required under the CEQ

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508).

These items include the following: (1) A

description of the proposed action and

possible alternatives; (2) the agency’s

proposed scoping process, including

scoping meeting information, if

applicable; and (3) the name and

address of an agency contact who can

answer questions regarding the

proposed action and the (S)EIS.

b. Draft Issues/options statement.

NMFS would prepare a succinct draft

statement of fishery issues, various

options for addressing them, and

potential management objectives; the

‘‘issues/options statement.’’ If ICCAT

has recommended management

measures for the fishery under

consideration, the draft issues/options

statement would outline the Secretary’s

preliminary recommendations as to the

appropriate U.S. actions to implement

any ICCAT recommendations. The draft

issues/options statement would be

available to the public upon request,

would be summarized in the notice, if

appropriate, would be distributed to

members of the relevant APs, and would

be made available at any public scoping

meetings.

c. AP meeting. NMFS would consult

during Phase 1 with the relevant AP and

other affected Federal agencies (e.g.,

U.S.G.C. or the U.S. Customs Service).

Consultation with the AP would take

place in an AP meeting, called by NMFS

and open to the public. This meeting

would focus on concepts, issues, and

management options. Documents would

be provided to the AP in a timely

manner and would generally include

the draft issues/options statement. After

reviewing comments from the AP,

NMFS would revise documents as

necessary prior to their preparation for

public review and comment. The views

and comments of the AP would be part

of the permanent official administrative

record supporting the development and

implementation of the subject HMS

FMP or FMP amendment.

d. Scoping meetings. At least one

scoping meeting would be held during

Phase 1. The objectives of the scoping

meeting(s) would be to: (1) Allow NMFS

representatives to meet directly with the

fishery interests; (2) review the draft

issues/option statement in a public

forum so that each fishery interest is

aware of NMFS’ views, as well as those

of other interests; (3) provide all fishery

interests an equal and early opportunity

to present their views; and (4) encourage

discussion of any mutual concerns

relevant to the management of the

fishery.

Scoping meetings would be initiated

by NMFS, would be open to the public,

and would be announced and scheduled

at times and places considered

convenient for fishery interests. The

date, location, and time of each scoping

meeting would be announced to the

public by timely Federal Register notice

and directly by NMFS over its FAX

NETWORK.

2. Phase 2—Preparation of Draft

Documents; Initial Review by

Consulting Parties

Draft FMPs or amendments would

contain all provisions required by 16

U.S.C. 1853 and 1854 and would

comply with all other MagnusonStevens Act requirements.

The following objectives of Phase 2

have been identified: (1) To review and

consider comments submitted by the AP

and the public at the scoping meetings,

and to prepare and distribute a revised

issues/options statement; and (2) to

prepare all draft documents required for

regulatory actions to implement or

amend an HMS FMP under the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable law;

a. Prepare draft documents. The draft

documents that would be prepared in

Phase 2 could include the following and

would be circulated to all Consulting

Parties. An AP meeting would be held

during this phase to assess comments

from the Consulting Parties and

recommend revisions of the following

draft documents:

1. Draft FMP or FMP amendment: The

draft FMP or FMP amendment and

supporting analyses would examine

fully all appropriate fishery issues,

propose alternative management

measures to address the identified

fishery issues or problems, assess the

environmental, economic, and social

impacts of each alternative measure,

and could identify the preferred

measures. Finally, the FMP or

amendment would identify research and

information priorities, including

observer requirements and necessary

data collection and analysis, for

managing the fishery of concern.

2. Draft proposed regulations: Only

draft proposed regulations would be

prepared in Phase 2 as opposed to

formal proposed regulations consisting

of both preamble and regulatory text,

which would be prepared and

published in Phase 3.

3. Draft NEPA documents (EA, Draft

EIS (DEIS), or DSEIS; Draft Regulatory

Impact Review (DRIR); and Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) if

applicable;

4. Draft statement assessing nature

and effectiveness of management

measures for implementing the ICCAT

recommendations;

5. Draft SF–83I and supporting

statement for approval of informationcollection requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act.

6. Draft section 7 consultation under

the Endangered Species Act;

7. Initial consistency determination

under the Coastal Zone Management

Act; and

8. Other documents as may be

required.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices 48993

3. Phase 3—Preparation of Revised

Documents and Proposed Regulations;

Public Review and Comment Period of

the Proposed FMP/Amendment and

Proposed Rule

The following objectives have been

identified for Phase 3: (1) Consider and

evaluate all comments received during

the public review and comment periods

of Phase 2; (2) make necessary changes

in preparing ‘‘revised’’ documents; (3)

prepare proposed regulations for

implementing the FMP or amendment

that accurately reflect the contents of

the revised FMP or amendment and

other revised documents and that meet

all regulatory requirements necessary

for publication in the Federal Register;

(4) provide a formal period for public

review and comment on the FMP or

amendment and the proposed

implementing regulations, as published

in the Federal Register; and (5) hold an

AP meeting to discuss previously

submitted public comments.

Notice of availability to the public

and proposed regulations published.

NMFS would publish in the Federal

Register for public review and

comment: (1) The notice of availability

of the revised FMP or amendment and

other revised supporting documents for

public review and comment; (2)

proposed regulations to implement the

FMP or amendment; and (3) notice of

any scheduled public hearings, if

additional hearings are held.

The Phase 3 period for public

comment for the FMP or amendment,

proposed regulations, and revised

supporting documents would be 60

days. The comment period on proposed

regulations that are minor revisions to

existing regulations could be less than

60 days. If significant changes are made

in the revised FMP or amendment over

the draft documents, or if significant

new issues are addressed, additional

public hearings could be held.

AP meetings. The relevant AP would

meet just prior to the close of the public

comment period. The purpose of this

meeting would be to consider comments

received during the comment period

and to make recommendations to NMFS

in preparation for final rulemaking.

A notice of scheduled public hearings

would be published in advance in the

Federal Register. Public hearings would

be held on the draft FMP or FMP

amendment, draft supporting

documents, draft NEPA documents

(D(S)EIS or EA), and proposed

regulations. Hearings would be

conducted at appropriate times and in

appropriate locations in the

geographical areas concerned so as to

allow all interested persons to be heard.

A NMFS official would preside over

these hearings and receive the public

testimony that would be recorded and

become part of the administrative

record.

Comment periods for each document

are summarized in the following table:

Draft FMP/Amend .... 60–90 days.

EA .............................. 45–60 days.

D(S)EIS ...................... 45–60 days.

Proposed Regulations 60 days, unless

minor revisions.

As a matter of standard agency

practice, NMFS would not respond to or

address public comments received

during Phase 2 on an individual basis

unless such comments are on the

D(S)EIS, in which case the F(S)EIS will

respond to any comments. All

comments received in Phase 2 would be

considered carefully and evaluated by

NMFS during Phase 3 in preparing the

revised FMP or FMP amendment,

revised supporting documents, the draft

F(S)EIS, and proposed implementing

regulations.

The review period for a D(S)EIS

would be initiated by a formal filing of

the D(S)EIS with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), which would also publish a

Federal Register notice of the

availability of the D(S)EIS for public

review and comment.

NMFS would prepare these revised

documents based upon review and

evaluation of comments from

Consulting Parties and the AP received

during Phase 2. The revised documents

would contain NMFS’ preferred

proposed management measures and the

requisite analyses of expected

biological, economic, and social

impacts. Revised documents would be

subject to all appropriate agency and

Federal standards for approval and

implementation of final FMPs and FMP

amendments.

4. Phase 4—Preparation of Final

Documents and Final Regulations

The objectives of Phase 4 would be to:

(1) Consider and evaluate all comments

received during Phase 3, including

those of the AP; (2) determine what final

changes are necessary in all final

documents; (3) prepare the final

documents; and (4) complete all final

agency requirements of documentation

and regulatory procedure supporting the

Phase 5 actions.

If a D(S)EIS was prepared and

subjected to public review and comment

in Phase 3, a draft F(S)EIS would be

prepared in Phase 4. This draft F(S)EIS

should meet all legal requirements for

an F(S)EIS even though it would not be

filed with EPA and subjected to the final

NEPA review (cooling-off period) until

Phase 5.

Documents To Be Prepared and

Document Contents.

(1) The final FMP or amendment, all

final supporting documents;

(2) The final F(S)EIS or EA; and

(3) The final implementing

regulations in appropriate form for

approval, issuance, and

implementation. The documents to be

prepared in final form during Phase 4

would include all those listed as revised

(or draft in the case of the F(S)EIS)

under Phase 3.

Based on the public comments

received during Phase 3, NMFS could

make changes in the FMP or FMP

amendment management measures and

corresponding analyses of

environmental, economic, and social

impacts. NMFS would not communicate

with fishery interests or members of the

public on the rulemaking during Phase

4, except to provide FMP or amendment

status information. Furthermore, NMFS

would not make public its decisions

regarding the contents of a final FMP or

FMP amendment, final supporting

documents, and final implementing

regulations until the Assistant

Administrator has approved and issued

the FMP or amendment publicly (see

Phase 5) and filed the implementing

final regulations with the Office of the

Federal Register.

NMFS may hold consultations in

Phase 4 under special circumstances,

particularly if ICCAT recommendations

are to be implemented through the FMP

or amendment and the public comments

received during Phase 3 have raised

new, significant or problematic issues.

5. Phase 5—Approval and

Implementation

The following objectives have been

identified for Phase 5: (1) File the

F(S)EIS with EPA and complete the

final NEPA public review period prior

to final agency action to approve and

implement the FMP or amendment; (2)

approve and issue the final FMP or

amendment; and (3) implement the FMP

by final regulations.

Approval procedures and timing. Any

F(S)EIS prepared for a final FMP or

amendment would be filed with EPA

prior to the Assistant Administrator’s

final approval and issuance of such

FMP or amendment. As required by the

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA,

no final agency decision (here the

issuance of an FMP, amendment, or a

final rule where no FMP is involved)

would be made until the later of either

90 days after publication of the notice

of availability of the D(S)EIS or 30 days
48994 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices

after publication of the notice of

availability of the F(S)EIS.

Approval of the final FMP or

amendment and implementing final

regulations by the Assistant

Administrator, as well as clearance of

the final regulations by the Department

of Commerce and the Office of

Management and Budget for

promulgation and publication in the

Federal Register, would follow standard

NOAA and Departmental procedures.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that

the final regulations must be

promulgated within 30 days of the end

of the comment period on the proposed

regulations.

6. Phase 6—Continuing and

Contingency Fishery Management

Once an FMP for a HMS has been

approved and implemented by final

regulations, there would be a continuing

need for monitoring the fishery and the

effectiveness of the FMP and

undertaking necessary FMP

adjustments. Such adjustments would

respond to changing fishery or resource

conditions and, for certain fisheries,

respond to international management

actions and recommendations. These

actions collectively comprise the

‘‘continuing fishery management

phase.’’ The AP would be convened

whenever necessary to address

continuing fishery management issues

and to consider necessary actions.

It is anticipated that many of these

FMP changes would be made through

framework regulatory adjustment

measures incorporated in each FMP;

accordingly, it should not be necessary

to repeat the full FMP amendment

process outlined in this notice each time

a change in the regulations is required.

As examples, annual changes in quotas

based upon the latest stock assessment

or the latest ICCAT recommendations

and in-season regulatory adjustments

could be made through framework

measures (see discussion below).

Management adjustments would be

based upon the latest and best available

scientific information concerning the

stock and fishery. Under 50 CFR

600.315, NMFS has the responsibility to

assure that an annual Stock Assessment

and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report is

prepared, reviewed annually, and

changed as necessary for each FMP. The

SAFE report would summarize the most

recent biological conditions of the

managed species, as well as the social

and economic conditions of the

recreational and commercial fishing

sectors and fish processing industries.

The SAFE report would also provide a

basis for determining annual harvest

levels, documenting significant trends

or changes in the resource and fishery

over time, assessing the effectiveness of

the management program, identifying

required management adjustments, and

identifying fishery data needs.

(a) Framework management

measures. To the extent possible,

NMFS/NOAA intends to include within

each HMS FMP framework regulatory

adjustment procedures that facilitate

making annual and in-season changes in

management measure under conditions

requiring ‘‘real time’’ regulatory

responses to fishery circumstances. If

ICCAT recommends new fishery

management measures or changes in

existing measures for a fishery managed

under an implemented FMP, NMFS

would consider such recommendations

and, if consistent with the requirements

of both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and

ATCA, incorporate them in the FMP

and implementing regulations. It is

anticipated that the regulatory

framework mechanism in each FMP

would provide the authority for most

such periodic changes in management

measures. The framework procedures

would allow adjustments to the

management measures within the scope

and criteria established by the FMP and

in a more expeditious manner than

through the full FMP amendment

process. Framework measures would be

particularly useful where annual ICCAT

recommendations for a fishery must be

implemented within a short time

period.

It is anticipated that an FMP with

framework measures may initially take

longer to prepare since it must: (1)

Anticipate and describe situations

expected to occur; (2) establish criteria,

procedures, and limits for regulatory

actions; (3) allow for public comment on

the range of potential actions, if

identifiable, and on the degree of

regulatory discretion held by the

Secretary; and (4) provide

documentation to support the

framework under other applicable law.

It is noted that framework measures

alone do not satisfy statutory

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act, other applicable law, and Executive

Orders. These requirements include full

analyses of expected environmental

effects of regulatory actions under

framework provisions, and the

opportunity for public review and

comment.

(b) Emergency actions. Pursuant to 16

U.S.C. 1855(c), the Secretary may

promulgate emergency or interim

regulations to address an emergency

existing in any fishery without regard to

whether an FMP exists for the fishery.

The Secretary also may promulgate

interim measures to reduce overfishing

for any fishery. Emergency or interim

regulations that change any existing

FMP or amendment shall be treated as

an amendment to such FMP or FMP

amendment for the duration of the

emergency period. The Secretary may

implement emergency or interim

regulations for HMS for up to 180

consecutive days from the date of

publication of the emergency rule in the

Federal Register and for one additional

period of not more than 180 days,

provided the public has had an

opportunity to comment on the

emergency regulations or interim

measures. Prior to promulgating

emergency or interim regulations for the

HMS with which ICCAT is concerned,

the Secretary would consult with the

appropriate entities.

D. Regulations Implementing ICCAT

Recommendations Without an FMP

The ATCA authorizes the Secretary to

promulgate regulations as may be

necessary and appropriate to carry out

ICCAT recommendations under 16

U.S.C. 971d(c) upon favorable action by

the Secretary of State under 16 U.S.C.

971c(a). Section 971d(c) requires the

Secretary to: (1) Publish a general notice

of proposed rulemaking in the Federal

Register, and (2) afford interested

persons an opportunity to participate in

the rulemaking process through

submission of written data, views, or

arguments and through one or more

public hearings.

In the event that the Secretary must

implement ICCAT recommendations

when no FMP has been prepared or

would not be prepared in sufficient time

NMFS would inform the Secretary of

State regarding the actions considered

appropriate for the United States with

regard to ICCAT recommendations

within 5 months of ICCAT’s notifying

the United States of its

recommendations. NMFS would

publish a proposed rule in the Federal

Register to implement ICCAT

recommendations and would provide a

public review and comment period,

including one or more public hearings.

The proposed regulations would contain

a statement of the considerations

involved in issuing the regulations, a

statement assessing the nature and

effectiveness of the measures for

implementing the recommendations of

ICCAT that are being or will be carried

out by other countries whose vessels

fish for the subject species in the ATCA.

NMFS would consider the public

comments before publishing final

regulations in the Federal Register and

would summarize and respond to these

comments in the preamble of the final

rule. The final regulations generally
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices 48995

would become effective 30 days after

the date of filing for public inspection

with the Office of the Federal Register,

and will be applicable to all vessels and

individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction

on the date prescribed by NMFS.

Classification

This action has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

Because this is a document

concerning agency procedure or

practice, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) prior

notice and opportunity for public

comment is not required to be given.

Nevertheless, because NMFS wishes to

establish revised procedures with the

benefit of the public’s comment, NMFS

is voluntarily giving prior notice and an

opportunity for public comment.

Because prior notice and opportunity

for public comment is not required by

5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the

analytical requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq., are inapplicable.

These proposed guidelines contain no

new collection of information

requirements.

Dated: September 12, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24809 Filed 9–15–97; 4:37 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 082897D]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permits 1038, 1040,

1046, 1047, 1049, and 1050 (P628, P631,

P639, P640, P642, and P644).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

NMFS has issued permits to Trihey and

Associates in Concord, CA; the State of

California, Jackson Demonstration State

Forest in Fort Bragg, CA (JDSF); the U.S.

National Park Service (Point Reyes

National Seashore and Golden Gate

National Recreation Area) in Fort Mason

and San Francisco, CA (NPS); the Marin

Municipal Water District in Corte

Madera, CA (MMWD); the Bodega

Marine Laboratory in Bodega Bay, CA

(BML); and ENTRIX Incorporated in

Walnut Creek, CA that authorize takes

of adult and juvenile, threatened,

central California coast coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) for the purpose

of scientific research, subject to certain

conditions set forth therein.

ADDRESSES: The applications and

related documents are available for

review in the following offices, by

appointment:

Office of Protected Resources, F/PR3,

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910–3226 (301-713-1401);

and

Protected Species Division, NMFS,

777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa

Rosa, CA 95404–6528 (707–575–6066).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

permits were issued under the authority

of section 10 of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)

and the NMFS regulations governing

ESA-listed fish and wildlife permits (50

CFR parts 217–222).

Notice was published on March 25,

1997 (62 FR 14115) that an application

had been filed by Trihey and Associates

(P628) for a scientific research permit.

Permit 1038 was issued to Trihey and

Associates on July 29, 1997. Permit 1038

expires on June 30, 2002.

Notice was published on April 18,

1997 (62 FR 19104) that an application

had been filed by JDSF (P631) for a

scientific research permit. Permit 1040

was issued to JDSF on July 29, 1997.

Permit 1040 expires on June 30, 2002.

Notice was published on April 8,

1997 (62 FR 16789) that an application

had been filed by NPS (P639) for a

scientific research permit. Permit 1046

was issued to NPS on August 1, 1997.

Permit 1046 expires on June 30, 2002.

Notice was published on April 8,

1997 (62 FR 16789) that an application

had been filed by MMWD (P640) for a

scientific research permit. Permit 1047

was issued to MMWD on

August 12, 1997. Permit 1047 expires

on June 30, 2002.

Notice was published on March 26,

1997 (62 FR 14403) that an application

had been filed by BML (P642) for a

scientific research permit. Permit 1049

was issued to BML on August 18, 1997.

Permit 1049 expires on June 30, 2002.

Notice was published on April 18,

1997 (62 FR 19104) that an application

had been filed by ENTRIX Incorporated

(P644) for a scientific research permit.

Permit 1050 was issued to ENTRIX

Incorporated on August 12, 1997. Permit

1050 expires on June 30, 2002.

Issuance of the permits, as required by

the ESA, was based on a finding that

such actions: (1) Were requested/

proposed in good faith, (2) will not

operate to the disadvantage of the ESAlisted species that is the subject of the

permits, and (3) are consistent with the

purposes and policies set forth in

section 2 of the ESA and the NMFS

regulations governing ESA-listed

species permits.

Dated: September 5, 1997.

Nancy Chu,

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office

of Protected Resources, National Marine

Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24811 Filed 9–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 090897D]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of two applications for

scientific research permits (P629, 1066).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Salmon Trollers Marketing

Association in Fort Bragg, CA (STMA)

and Donald W. Alley and Associates in

Brookdale, CA (DWAA) have applied in

due form for permits that would

authorize takes of a threatened species

for scientific research.

DATES: Written comments or requests for

a public hearing on either of these

applications must be received on or

before October 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The applications and

related documents are available for

review in the following offices, by

appointment:

Office of Protected Resources, F/PR3,

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910–3226 (301–713–

1401); and

Protected Species Division, NMFS,

777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa

Rosa, CA 95404–6528 (707 575–6066).

Written comments or requests for a

public hearing should be submitted to

the Protected Species Division in Santa

Rosa, CA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: STMA

and DWAA request permits under the

authority of section 10 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)

(16 U.S.C. 1531–1543) and the NMFS

regulations governing ESA-listed fish

and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 217–

227).

STMA (P629) requests a five-year

permit for takes of adult and juvenile,

threatened, central California coast coho

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

associated with fish population studies