[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