Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Regional Fishery Management Councils; Operations, 59143-59154 [2010-24222]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59143-59154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24222]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 080102007-0337-03]
RIN 0648-AW18


Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; 
Regional Fishery Management Councils; Operations

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes changes to the regulations that address the 
operations and administration of the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils (Councils). The regulatory changes implement the 2006 
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) that, among other things, establish the 
Council Coordinating Committee (CCC), require that the Councils' 
science and statistical committee (SSC) members disclose their 
financial interests, and provide for training of Council members and 
staff. Additionally, this final rule clarifies the Council documents 
that should be available to the public; the restrictions on lobbying; 
the procedures for Council member nomination, including timing for 
submission of nominations; and also requires Councils to provide 
procedures for deeming regulations necessary and or appropriate for 
implementing fishery management plans and plan amendments. These 
regulations also set forth additional financial disclosure requirements 
for Council members, and revise the security assurance procedures for 
nominees to and members of the Councils. Finally, this rule makes 
technical and minor corrections to the regulations unrelated to the 
most recent Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments.

DATES: Effective October 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or 
other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained 
in this rule may be submitted to Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of 
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-
West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Fax: 301-713-1175, and by 
e-mail to Submission@omb.eop.gov">OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Chappell, at 301-713-2337.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposed rule for this action was 
published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13386), with public comment accepted 
though July 6, 2009. Several Regional Fishery Management Councils 
requested that the comment period be extended, and NMFS responded by 
extending the public comment period to November 2, 2009 (74 FR 31224, 
June 30, 2009). Subsequently, NMFS published a supplementary rule 
addressing elements of this action on December 7, 2009 (74 FR64042, 
December 7, 2009), with a comment period ending January 6, 2010. A 
detailed description of the statutory and regulatory authority and need 
for this rule is contained in the preamble of the proposed rules and is 
not repeated here.
    This final rule does not finalize regulations on all the elements 
of the proposed rules. For those elements not finalized in this action, 
additional public comment will be sought on the proposed rules, or a 
new proposed rule may be issued for public comment. Specifically, 
issues regarding stipends for Scientific and Statistical Committees 
(SSCs) and Advisory Panels need additional public review and comment. 
Issues addressing the functions of SSCs have been addressed by a recent 
rulemaking, i.e., the publication of the final rule on National 
Standard 1 Guidelines, (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009), or will be 
addressed in other actions (i.e. pending National Standard 2 Guidelines 
(proposed rule published at 74 FR 56724, December 11, 2009).

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    NMFS received thirteen written responses from organizations and 
individuals to a call for comments on a proposed rule published on 
March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13386). Responses included five letters from 
fishery management councils, one from an attorney for a fishing 
industry group, three from environmental non-governmental organizations 
(ENGOs), a letter from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), 
and three on-line submissions from individuals.
    In response to the supplemental proposed rule (74 FR 64042, 
December 7, 2009), NMFS received a second letter from one of the 
fishery management councils and two from ENGOs that had previously 
commented. A fishing industry association and the Marine Mammal 
Commission (MMC) also responded to the request for comments.
    Comment 1: A letter from an ENGO supported the idea of defining the 
terms ``advisory panel'' (AP) and ``fishing industry advisory 
committee'' (FIAC) and differentiating the groups from one another. 
Three Councils commented that the definitions should not distinguish 
between the types of advisory groups for the purposes of authorizing 
stipends for one, the APs, but not for the other, the FIACs. They noted 
that the names given advisory groups and the functions of those groups 
are not consistent with the proposed rule and vary in usage from 
Council to Council. Also, one respondent noted that Magnuson-Stevens 
Act Sec. 302(g)(4) refers to the formation of APs, yet it is not 
referenced in the proposed definition of advisory panels and asks if 
this is an oversight.
    Response: Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils are 
authorized to establish committees and advisory panels at Sec. 
302(g)(1) (SSCs), (g)(2) (APs), and (g)(3) (FIACs) as per separate 
sections of the statute. Sec 301(g)(4) authorized the Secretary to 
establish APs for Atlantic highly migratory species. Council practice, 
however, has made little distinction between APs and FIACs. In 
addition, what would be considered an AP under Sec. 302(g)(2) is often 
called a committee, and the terms have been used interchangeably and 
inconsistently from Council to Council. The 2007 reauthorization of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act authorized stipends for APs, but not for FIACs. 
The proposed rule suggested definitions to aid Councils in 
distinguishing which Council advisory groups' members would be 
authorized to receive a stipend. In order to determine their 
eligibility for stipends and whether they are required to meet the 
meeting notice requirements of 50 CFR 600.135, these definitions are 
retained and the Councils are now required to declare under which 
section in the Magnuson-Stevens Act the organization is organized.
    Comment 2: A letter from ENGOs suggested the term ``fishing 
industry advisory committee'' be replaced by ``community advisory 
panel'' to ensure the definition does not preclude membership by 
individuals who are not representatives of the fishing industry.

[[Page 59144]]

    Response: The proposed definition of the term ``fishing industry 
advisory committee'' is taken from the term's usage in Sec. 
302(g)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS cannot change the term 
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act; however, there is nothing in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act that would preclude a Council's discretion to establish a 
community advisory panel or other advisory groups with representation 
from a broad set of interests.
    Comment 3: Several commenters responded to NMFS' request for 
guidance on the payment of stipends to certain members of the SSCs and 
APs. One commenter stated that stipends were meant primarily to 
compensate and enable participation by experts who would not normally 
be employed and paid directly to do so. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
specifies that SSC and AP members who are federal employees and state 
marine fisheries agency staff are not entitled stipends. Other 
individuals who are similarly employed (e.g., by state enforcement 
agencies, marine fisheries commissions, ENGOs, tribal governments, 
etc.) should also not be entitled to stipend funds. One commenter noted 
that the amounts paid as stipends to SSC and AP members should be the 
same for all Councils and should be at the same rate as Council members 
are paid for their service. Another respondent recommended that 
stipends should not be paid until the eligibility criteria and business 
rules for payment are specified in the Council's statements of 
organization, practices, and procedures. A letter from ENGOs stresses 
that funding for SSC and AP stipends should be given a high priority.
    Response: The final rule reiterates the eligibility for stipends as 
it was presented in the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. In addition, the final rule clarifies that employees of State 
agencies that have management, conservation, or enforcement 
jurisdiction over marine fisheries in their state are considered 
employees of State marine fisheries agencies and thus are ineligible 
for stipends. Similarly, employees of tribal agencies with marine 
fisheries responsibilities are considered employees of State marine 
fisheries agencies.
    Comment 4: Respondents from industry, Councils, ENGOs, and a 
government agency expressed support for the proposal requiring Councils 
to post their statements of organization, practices, and procedures 
(SOPPs) on the Council website. The SBA suggested that the SOPPs also 
should be made available by other means (e.g., printed copies upon 
request) for individuals without Internet access.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the comments. Through this final rule, 
each Council is required to post its SOPP on the Council's Internet 
site. Copies of SOPPs are currently available for download from most of 
the Council websites and will remain available in print format upon 
request to the Council.
    Comment 5: Two Councils, noting that SOPPs must be approved by the 
Assistant Administrator of the NMFS, asked for clarification on the 
process for making minor edits and technical corrections to the SOPP 
and asked whether such amendments, so long as they are consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, can be made without NOAA approval.
    Response: SOPPs are a means for Councils to describe how their 
procedures and practices are consistent, not only with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, but also with a body of law associated with federal 
assistance and grant administration. NMFS understands the need for some 
flexibility to allow a Council to make minor changes to its SOPP. NMFS 
has drafted procedures for Secretarial approval of SOPP amendments. The 
procedures will be posted on the NMFS policy directives system Web 
site. They will provide guidance on how to effect minor technical 
changes and when Secretarial approval is needed.
    Comment 6: One Council, which has recently made a number of 
improvements to its SOPP based on recommendations made by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO), suggested that the GAO's recommended measures 
be applied to all of the Councils and addressed in a standardized 
manner in all of the SOPPs.
    Response: The recommendations of the GAO report that are applicable 
to all Councils have been addressed in this final rule. Specifically, 
Council members will now be required to specify the nature of the 
financial interest when recusing themselves. Further, Councils are now 
required to maintain current and archived copies of documents available 
for public inspection on their Web sites. The availability of documents 
on the Web sites should reduce the need and volume of material needed 
in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.
    Comment 7: An ENGO asked for NMFS to specify with which regulatory 
requirements the SOPPs must comply.
    Response: The requirements of a SOPP are included in Subchapter B 
(50 CFR Sec. Sec.  600.105 to 600.115). The regulatory and 
administrative requirements that must be addressed in a SOPP may change 
occasionally as policies and governing statutes are updated. Rather 
than listing the requirements in regulation, NMFS will provide the 
Councils with a SOPP template listing the basic requirements of the 
SOPP as part of the SOPPs amendment procedures.
    Comment 8: Two Councils requested that the basis for salary of 
Council executive directors be put on par with that of NMFS Regional 
Administrators and the senior executive service pay scale. Also, they 
suggested that commensurate adjustments should be made to the salaries 
of Council staffs.
    Response: NMFS notes the comment; however, this topic is outside 
the scope of this rulemaking.
    Comment 9: A commenter from an ENGO supported expanding the role of 
the SSC. A representative of a fishery association noted that the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for both an SSC and a peer review body, and 
suggested that the SSC should consist of individuals with technical 
expertise in various fisheries and a peer review panel should be 
separate and distinct from it.
    Response: This final rule addresses only the organization of the 
SSC. The role of the SSC with regard to its responsibilities and 
Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 2 is detailed in Sec.  600.315 
and is outside the scope of this rulemaking. It is a topic of the 
separate National Standard 2 rulemaking ( proposed rule published at 74 
FR 65724, December 11, 2009).
    Comment 10: One respondent suggested adjusting the roles of the SSC 
to ensure the determination of the annual catch limit (ACL) is 
completely separated from the determination of how to allocate the ACL.
    Response: The role of the SSC relative to the determination of ACLs 
is addressed in regulations implementing Magnuson-Stevens Act National 
Standard 1 at Sec.  600.310 and is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Comment 11: With regard to announcing forthcoming Council and 
committee meetings, one commenter stated that 45 days advanced notice 
is necessary to allow fishing industry members to plan their 
attendance. The commenter also suggested that the term ``wide 
publicity'' be read to require publication of meeting announcements in 
local and national trade magazines and distribution via the vessel 
monitoring system (VMS) in order to reach more industry members. The 
SBA stated its support for the changes in meeting announcement media, 
including the condition that

[[Page 59145]]

announcement over the Internet alone is not sufficient.
    Response: NMFS agrees that meetings of all types should be 
announced as far ahead as possible, however, the minimum 14-day advance 
notification requirements are retained. Councils need the flexibility 
of shorter notification windows in order to ensure the meetings can 
provide a timely response to emerging and urgent issues. Schedules for 
most full Council meetings and many major committee meetings are 
usually established well in advance of the meeting date. Full agendas 
for the meetings, however, may not be known until just several weeks 
prior to the meeting. The Councils are encouraged to provide as much 
advance notice of meetings as is possible and use the media, including 
industry publications, which will be most effective for meeting 
announcements. NMFS does not concur that announcing meetings is an 
appropriate use of the VMS due to low data transmission rates and high 
costs to the fishermen.
    Comment 12: One commenter cited the Magnuson-Stevens Act provision 
that SSC meetings should be held, to the extent practicable, in 
conjunction with Council meetings. The commenter noted that some 
Councils appear to have made little effort to align the meetings and to 
ease the burden on those people who would like to attend both.
    Response: NMFS encourages Councils to adjust their meeting 
schedules to allow SSC and Council meetings to be held in conjunction 
with one another. However, scheduling of Council and committee meetings 
is a function of how each Council operates. Some Councils have 
successfully aligned the Council meetings with SSC and other committee 
meetings. Others are supporting processes in which the SSC meeting must 
precede Council meetings by a certain period in order for the SSC's 
outcomes to be considered in the Council meeting.
    Comment 13: In three letters from ENGOs, respondents expressed 
concern that the meeting announcement requirements do not seem to apply 
to Interdisciplinary Planning Teams, consisting of members and NMFS/
Council staff and occasionally relying on input from outside experts 
(also called Plan Development Teams, Fishery Management Action Teams, 
or Technical Teams). They stated that the meetings of such teams should 
be fully open to the public and announced in advance, just as Council 
meetings are; or otherwise, the use of such teams should be 
discontinued.
    Response: Many Councils have ad hoc planning and development teams 
that are not constituted under MSA Section 302(g), and are not subject 
to the meeting notice and conduct requirements as for a Council or AP 
meeting. These groups are organized for the purpose of preparing 
information for subsequent review of a Council, AP, or other MSA 
Section 302(g) committee. Presentation of their work products at a 
Council, AP, or other MSA Section 302(g) committee meeting, followed by 
public comment provides adequate public input. To the extent 
practicable, NMFS encourages notice and public attendance meetings of 
these ad hoc planning and development teams.
    Comment 14: Comments from industry representatives, ENGOs, the 
Councils, and the SBA supported the proposed rule requiring Councils to 
establish a written procedure for deeming proposed regulations 
necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
and for submitting proposed regulations to the Secretary. The SBA 
recommended that NMFS provide guidance to the Councils on the 
procedures in order to ensure consistency and transparency across 
Councils.
    Response: The NOAA General Counsel for Fisheries has consulted with 
the Councils, through the Council Coordinating Committee, on the 
requirements for deeming proposed regulations necessary or appropriate 
for the Council's purposes. Different Regions and Councils have 
different agreements concerning who does regulatory drafting. 
Therefore, each NMFS regional office, the Council, the Council 
attorney-advisor from the NOAA Office of General Counsel, and NOAA 
General Counsel for Fisheries will collaborate to ensure the procedures 
are efficient, responsive to specific regional needs, consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and transparent from the public's 
perspective.
    Comment 15: Letters from an ENGO, an industry association 
representative, the MMC, and the SBA supported the proposed requirement 
for each Council to post on its Internet website a variety of 
documents, including fishery management plans (FMPs), FMP amendments 
under consideration, supporting analysis of alternatives, minutes of 
past meetings of the Council and its committees, and the pre-meeting 
information packages that are provided to Council members. Both 
respondents stated that NMFS should require and support the ability of 
the Councils to maintain the information technology infrastructure 
capacity necessary to fulfill this requirement and that the posting of 
a document should never be considered impracticable.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the comments and agrees that there 
should be no technological constraints to Councils posting their 
current and archived documents on the Internet. This final rule does 
not retain the ``to the extent practicable'' clause, but it has been 
revised to require the Councils to maintain copies of documents too 
large to maintain on the Web site at the Council office for viewing 
during regular business hours.
    Comment 16: One Council commented that a Council should not be 
required to record and post on the Internet minutes from the meetings 
of its committees and advisory bodies. Wide distribution of meeting 
reports should suffice.
    Response: NMFS considers it a responsibility of the each Council to 
post records of the Council and the Council's committees on the 
Internet. The intent of the rule is not to require Councils to change 
their formats for taking down a record of meetings of the Council and 
its committees, but to require that those records, whatever their 
format, be made available for viewing via the Council's Internet site. 
The language in this final rule has been adjusted so as not to imply 
that verbatim minutes of advisory group meetings are required.
    Comment 17: One Council stated its disagreement with the proposed 
requirement that past Council members take a full year break in service 
before becoming eligible for reappointment to fill an off-cycle 
opening.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment, but makes no change to the 
requirement in this final rule. The previous requirement was for a one-
year break in service between appointments and this requirement stands. 
The intent of the change to this section was to remove obsolete 
language. NMFS interprets the intent of the requirement of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act at Section 302(b)(3) as providing the opportunity 
for a variety of people to serve on Councils. This rule reduces the 
opportunity to put forth a candidate who will resign shortly after 
appointment, allowing the member with 3 consecutive terms to apply 
immediately for that position. This rule does not preclude a Council 
member from being nominated for a term beginning one year after 
completing his or her third term.
    Comment 18: One Council supported the proposed changes that would 
allow more time for submission of member nomination packages. A letter 
from ENGOs stated that existing regulations

[[Page 59146]]

concerning Council nominations and appointments provide for a clear and 
fair process and that simply adhering to the existing requirements 
would solve many procedural challenges. Further, they suggest that the 
period between the nomination and paperwork submission deadlines will 
be used for intense activism by opponents of the nominees to derail the 
appointments.
    Response: NMFS retains the March 15 date for substantially complete 
nomination packages to be received from the Governors. NMFS drafted the 
proposed rule to address recurrent problems in the nomination and 
appointment processes regarding the submission of information for 
background investigations. This final rule requiring the background 
investigation to be initiated after the member is conditionally 
appointed will afford more time in which to receive and prepare 
extensive background and security assurance documents. Therefore, the 
deadline for package submission is unchanged in this final rule.
    Comment 19: One respondent suggested that NMFS contact state 
governors earlier in the year and specify qualifications for nominees, 
and, by January 15, should detail the process in the Federal Register 
and set up a dedicated website with information. Also, after the 
nomination deadline passes, NMFS should commit to publishing the 
nominees' names on the website within five days.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comments as helpful ideas for 
consideration in the future, but will not specify these details in 
regulation because current regulations are sufficient to address these 
concerns. NMFS contacts governors' offices regarding nominations 
beginning in December. NMFS makes a formal request for nominations from 
each governor in mid January. An earlier formal request is not 
practicable in some cases, due to changes in state administration in 
January following state elections in November. NMFS follows up with a 
reminder to the Governors in mid February and works closely with the 
governors' offices and state representatives on the Councils to help in 
completing the packages. Council members, state representatives and 
governors' offices are very aware of upcoming Council seat vacancies, 
and earlier notification is not likely to solve the problem of late 
nomination package submissions. NMFS does provide a public list of 
nominees once all nominees have completed an initial vetting.
    Comment 20: One letter suggested that NMFS require each nomination 
package to include a letter from the nominee to the governor requesting 
to serve on the Council.
    Response: NMFS concurs that it would be helpful to have written 
acknowledgement from nominees acknowledging their nomination and their 
commitment to serve on the Council if appointed by the Secretary. This 
suggestion will be added to the requirements of the nomination 
materials submitted to the governors and/or the nominees rather than in 
this regulation.
    Comment 21: One commenter suggested that NMFS should specify how 
governors can replace nominees who turn out to be unqualified or 
unsuitable for appointment.
    Response: The current regulations at 50 CFR 600.215(e) state that 
governors should submit a list of at least three qualified nominees for 
each open seat. In the event that a preferred nominee is deemed 
unsuitable or unqualified, an alternate will be selected from the list 
submitted by the governor. Under section 302(b)(2)(C), if the Secretary 
determines that any individual is not qualified, the Secretary shall 
notify the appropriate Governor of that determination. The Governor 
shall then submit a revised list or resubmit the original list with an 
additional explanation of the qualifications of the individual in 
question. An individual is not eligible for appointment by the 
Secretary until that individual complies with the applicable financial 
disclosure requirements under section 302(k).
    Comment 22: One respondent noted support for including the oath of 
office for Council members in the rule.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment. The oath of office is 
unchanged in this final rule.
    Comment 23: In the supplementary proposed rule, a heading at 50 CFR 
600.235(a) lists ``advocacy'' and ``lobbying'' as types of reportable 
financial interest relationships, yet the definitions in the proposed 
rule text do not include references to advocacy or lobbying. The 
definition should be updated to indicate the types of income stemming 
from advocacy and lobbying that must be disclosed by affected 
individuals.
    Response: Both proposed rules referred to the existing rule, so 
changes proposed in the first proposed rule did not appear in the 
second proposed rule. In this final rule, the proposed changes from 
both proposed rules have been adopted and consolidated. NMFS considers 
any income derived from lobbying or advocacy to be disclosable. 
Therefore, NMFS did not specify the types of income as it would be too 
limiting on what is reportable.
    Comment 24: Three Councils commented on the proposed new 
regulations regarding lobbying by Council members, staff, and 
contractors. Two called for clarification on how the rule bears on 
interactions between Council members/staff and the executive branch, 
particularly as regards a Council's obligations under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to advise and direct the Secretary of Commerce and to 
consult with other agencies on essential fish habitat. A third Council 
and an ENGO suggested that NMFS specify how the new regulations differ 
from existing regulations on lobbying and provide greater clarity with 
regard to specific prohibited activities.
    Response: The regulations regarding lobbying make no change from 
previous law or guidance, but serve to provide some general direction 
and emphasis on this matter. The rule has no effect on the Council's 
interactions with NMFS and other agencies pursuant to a Council's 
obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Nor does the rule affect 
Council interaction with NMFS regarding Council administration, budget, 
and planning. The regulations do highlight the pre-existing limits 
regarding the Councils' interaction with Congress by specifically 
prohibiting attempts to influence the introduction and content of 
legislation.
    Comment 25: One ENGO addressed the subject of Council member 
conflicts of interest and recusal in two separate letters. The 
commenter suggested that voluntary recusal is insufficient and that 
NMFS establish mandatory requirements for Council members to recuse 
themselves from discussion and voting when they have interests likely 
to be directly affected by the outcome of the vote. The ENGO suggested 
that non-compliance with the recusal requirement should be penalized 
and the subject vote should be vacated.
    Response: While NMFS acknowledges the commenter's concern, we 
believe existing regulations and penalties are sufficient. Existing 
regulations at 50 C.F.R. Sec.  600.235(c)(1) require that an affected 
individual may not vote on any Council decision that would have a 
significant and predictable effect on a financial interest disclosed in 
his/her report. Paragraph (i) of the same section states that 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

[[Page 59147]]

applicable under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a violation of this 
provision removes that person from the exemption from 18 U.S.C. 208, 
the general federal conflict of interest statute, and may result in 
criminal prosecution. This may also result in removal of the affected 
individual from Council membership.
    Comment 26: An ENGO stated its support for the requirement to have 
Council members identify their affected financial interests when 
recusing themselves. Further, they called for a requirement to have the 
recusals and the stated affected financial interests included in the 
official public record of the meeting.
    Response: NMFS agrees that Council minutes must record when member 
recuse themselves and the reasons for that recusal, however no changes 
are made to the regulations. Since a Council member must state the 
reason for a recusal as noted at Sec.  600.235(d), it follows that the 
Council minutes must reflect that. Further, Statements of financial 
interest are already a matter of record and available at Council 
meetings as noted at Sec.  600.235(b)(3).
    Comment 27: An ENGO called for all votes made by each Council 
member to be included in the official public record of the meetings.
    Response: NMFS does not agree that all votes by a Council need a 
roll call vote. Motions and the votes taken on them are already 
required to be in the minutes under Roberts Rules of Order, as 
practiced by all Councils. Not all votes taken by a Council require a 
roll call and a specific record of each member's vote. Voting in 
accordance with Robert's Rules of Order may take several forms. A 
Council member may call for a vote by roll call, in which case each 
member's vote is recorded. This is the usual case for important or 
contentious votes. Other forms of voting, i.e., a hand vote, may not 
result in a record of voting by each individual member, but by a count. 
A voice vote may be taken when the issue is more routine, i.e., motion 
to adjourn. Some votes, such as those for officers, may be by secret 
ballot.
    Comment 28: A letter from ENGOs expressed concern that the revised 
guidelines regarding conflict of interest might be construed to 
preclude an ENGO's representative on a Council from voting. The 
respondent argues that NMFS should make a distinction between 
representatives of ENGOs and those from industry as regards the 
financial stake consequent to a Council vote. Employment in an ENGO 
alone should not be grounds for determining a conflict of interests 
exists.
    Response: NMFS concurs with this interpretation of the conflict of 
interest guidelines. The condition of being employed by an ENGO should 
in itself not be grounds for a Council member's recusal, unless it is 
reasonable to conclude that the outcome of the vote may have a 
significant and predictable effect on the financial interests of the 
member. No changes to the regulations are necessary.
    Comment 29: A representative of an industry association commented 
that SSC members should be subjected to the same recusal guidelines as 
Council members.
    Response: Magnuson-Stevens Act considers SSC members to be 
``affected individuals'' and as such specifies certain provisions under 
section 302(j), ``Disclosure of Financial Interest and Recusal,'' apply 
to SSC members. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not specify that 
subparagraph (j)(7), which requires recusal from Council votes under 
certain circumstances, applies to SSC members. NMFS has not set forth 
financial recusal requirements for SSC members in this final rule; 
however, Councils may establish local procedures for its committees and 
advisory groups that would call on members to announce their financial 
interests in the subject matter of the proceedings.
    Comment 30: A Council suggested that the consequence of an SSC 
member not completing the financial disclosure form should be stated in 
the rule.
    Response: The consequences of an affected individual's falsifying 
or failing to complete the financial disclosure form are specified in 
50 CFR 235(i). It is unlawful for an affected individual to knowingly 
and willfully fail to disclose, or to falsely disclose, any financial 
interest as required. Consequences of an SSC member's non-compliance 
with the requirement to submit a correct, complete, and current 
financial disclosure form may include removal from the SSC, censure by 
the Council, and civil prosecution for falsifying information in an 
official form, subject to penalties under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
18 U.S.C. 208 conflict of interest guidelines.
    Comment 31: Several commenters noted the inadequacy of NOAA's 
current forms for disclosing one's financial interests. The form is 
awkward for those who are not employed in the fishing industry, and it 
does not accommodate reporting on all of the interests addressed under 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. One commenter provided very detailed 
suggestions for revising the form.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the need to update the financial 
disclosure form. A new form is being drafted and will be submitted for 
clearance through the procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act subject 
to the outcome of this rule. Under these procedures a notice requesting 
comments on the draft form will be published in the Federal Register in 
the fall of 2010.
    Comment 32: An ENGO supports the requirement that Council members 
update their financial disclosures annually.
    Response: NMFS concurs with this current requirement.
    Comment 33: Several respondents commented on the types of income 
and the sources of income that must be disclosed by affected 
individuals. An industry association representative and the SBA called 
on NMFS to require disclosure of any grants or other financial 
interests held by any SSC member, particularly where the issue is of 
concern to the management process. Further, the term ``financial 
interest'' should be broadened and clarified to include any income, 
grant, or other monetary or in-kind remuneration received by any of the 
persons or entities from any organization seeking to influence the 
decisions of any Council for which the SSC provides advice.
    Response: NMFS is revising the financial disclosure form and will 
provide instructions that make clear what sources and types of income 
are reportable.
    Comment 34: Two letters from ENGOs supported the proposed 
requirement for affected individuals to disclose employment by 
subsidiaries and associates of entities that may be affected by Council 
decisions. An industry association noted that such business 
relationships may not be knowable to the affected individual. The 
industry association suggested that this provision not be implemented 
until further deliberation of the implications of the provision and the 
breadth of its applicability.
    Response: NMFS is revising the financial disclosure form and will 
provide instructions that make clear what sort of business 
relationships will be reportable. NMFS will specify in this final rule 
that parent entities and subsidiaries of the entity providing 
compensation to the affected individual will have to be listed on the 
form if the entities are involved in regional fisheries under the 
jurisdiction of the subject Council.
    Comment 35:A respondent suggested that NMFS rephrase 50 CFR 
600.235(c)(2) to clarify existing regulations that currently can be 
read as treating IFQ-managed fisheries

[[Page 59148]]

differently from others for determining when recusal is required.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the comment and has revised the 
sentence as suggested to clarify that holding any percentage of IFQ is 
not dispositive of the question of whether a Council decision will have 
a ``significant and predictable effect on a financial interest'' 
requiring recusal. Rather, the percentage IFQ held will be used to 
assess the relative financial interests of the Council member.
    Comment 36: A letter from ENGOs expressed the concern that 
background investigations would not be conducted for all nominees to a 
Council seat, but only for those appointed to the Council. The ENGOs 
called for a requirement for all individuals nominated for a Council 
seat to disclose any prior felony convictions as part of the nomination 
packages submitted to the Secretary, and in so doing, helping to avoid 
removal of an appointed Council member when prior felonies are 
discovered as the security assurances are completed.
    Response: NMFS does not agree that background investigations are 
needed for all nominees prior to their appointment. Reviews by the 
governors and enforcement checks by NMFS have been found to be adequate 
for initial selections. Appointments conditional upon a favorable 
background investigation will ensure that only suitable appointments 
are made. The additional work required by the nominee and by the agency 
investigating the information for background investigations is costly 
and time consuming, resulting in few or no differences in appointments.
    NMFS conducts initial vetting and enforcement checks of nominees in 
which most issues that would affect a nominee's ability to serve are 
discovered. It is expected that governors will conduct some level of 
background and suitability review before nominating individuals to the 
Council per Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. A past felony conviction 
may be disqualifying. Further, the background investigation forms 
require disclosure of past criminal history. Failure to report such 
matters truthfully and fully would be grounds for an unfavorable 
background check.
    Comment 37: A respondent stated support for making final Council 
appointments conditional upon favorable background investigation and 
noted that NMFS should specify what circumstances would result in an 
unfavorable background investigation triggering revocation of Council 
membership.
    Response: NMFS agrees that final Council appointments are 
contingent upon a favorable background check. This requirement is 
retained in the final rule. While it would be inappropriate, because of 
national security considerations, to list all criteria that would be 
cause for disapproval, some of the most obvious reasons for an 
unfavorable background investigation are noted in the response to 
Comment 36, above. Background investigations explore a great variety of 
information about the nominee and a favorable check indicates that the 
person is acceptable as an employee of the United States. Finally, 
background investigations are confidential, and reasons for determining 
a nominee is unsuitable for appointment will not be disclosed to the 
public.
    Comment 38: Two respondents addressed the requirement for new 
Council members to attend training. One called for NMFS to provide 
training materials to nominated members before their swearing-in. The 
other suggested that the training be required of veteran members and 
Council staffs and that the subject matter should include innovations 
in fisheries science in addition to legal and procedural matters.
    Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that training be 
provided to newly appointed members; therefore, they receive top 
priority for training resources in order to ensure NMFS is compliant 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS has made training available to 
veteran members and staff subject to availability of space and funding. 
NMFS posts all past training materials on the Internet and sent 
training materials to Council nominees prior to swearing-in in 2010 and 
will do so in the future.
    NMFS also received comments on a number of other topics that are 
not addressed in the proposed or final rule. Subjects discussed in 
these comments included the length of NEPA documents, diversity of 
representation of sectors in Council membership, NMFS's role in 
overseeing the Council and approving its decisions, the status of 
overfishing relative to the quality of management provided by the 
Councils, procedural transparency, and standards for Council websites. 
NMFS takes notes of all these comments, but will not address these 
matters further, as they are not relevant to the subjects addressed in 
this particular rulemaking.

Changes from the Proposed Rule

    In Sec.  600.10, the definitions for ``advisory panel (AP)'' and 
``fishing industry advisory committee (FIAC)'' were retained. As noted 
in the response to Comment 1, Council practice has made little 
distinction between the two types of advisory group, therefore, this 
final rule requires that the section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act under 
which the panel or committee or other group was formed be identified.
    In Sec.  600.10, the definition for ``Regional Administrator'' has 
been further revised by removing the reference to the previous title of 
``Regional Director'', as this title is no longer in use.
    In Sec.  600.133, paragraph (b) is moved to a new Sec.  600.134. 
Paragraph (c) reserved for peer review is removed, as peer review will 
be addressed in the National Standard Guideline 2 final rule, codified 
at Sec.  600.315. Paragraphs (a)(1)-(a)(4) are redesignated as 
paragraphs (a)-(d).
    A new Sec.  600.134 is added to explain that SCC and AP members may 
be eligible to receive stipends. State marine fisheries agencies are 
defined as including any state or tribal agency that has conservation, 
management, or enforcement responsibility for any marine fishery 
resources.
    In Sec.  600.135, the wording of paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) is 
revised to clarify that all committees of each Council must follow the 
procedures of the section. Committees do not include groups that 
consist of only Council staff and Federal employees.
    In Sec.  600.150(b), the regulation has been revised to require 
pertinent documents to be on each Council's Internet site, with 
alternative methods of retrieval for specific documents. The words ``to 
the extent practicable'' have been removed.
    In Sec.  600.215(e), in the introductory language, the wording 
regarding receipt of the nomination packages is revised to reinstate 
and clarify the requirement that nomination packages must be received 
by March 15 each year. The language is carried forward to paragraph 
(e)(2). This is made possible by a change to Sec.  600.240 that now 
requires only persons appointed as Council members to get security 
assurances instead of all nominees, reducing time and administrative 
burden.
    In Sec.  600.235, the definition of ``Financial interest in 
harvesting, processing, lobbying, advocacy, or marketing'' is revised 
to clarify in what entities a Council member must declare a financial 
interest. The language is revised by changing ``any subsidiary of such 
entities'' to the following: ``employment with any entity that has any 
percentage ownership in or by another entity''.
    In Sec.  600.235(c), the language is clarified to explain that the 
percentage

[[Page 59149]]

of an affected individual's percentage holdings in an IFQ is used to 
determine the individual's financial interest in a fishery, since this 
percentage can be directly related to total financial benefits in the 
fishery.
    In Sec.  600.240, the requirement for background investigations to 
be reinitiated every 5 years for serving members is rescinded. This 
requirement matches current requirements for Federal employees 
requiring the same level of background investigation.

Classification

    The Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 
determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and 
management of the fisheries and that it is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other 
applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The factual basis for is published in the proposed rule and 
is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this 
certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not 
required and none has been prepared.
    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been 
approved by OMB under Control Number 0649-0192. Public reporting burden 
for completing and submitting the Statement of Financial Interests, 
Form 88-195, is estimated to average 35 minutes per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-
mail to OIRA Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the 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, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Statistics.

    Dated: September 21, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 600 as 
follows:

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read:

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

0
2. In Sec.  600.10, add definitions for ``Advisory panel (AP),'' and 
``Fishing industry advisory committee (FIAC)'' in alphabetical order; 
and revise the definitions for ``Region'', ``Regional Administrator'', 
and ``Science and Research Director'' to read as follows:


Sec.  600.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Advisory panel (AP) means a committee formed, selected, and 
formally designated as a Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 302(g)(2) 
advisory panel by the Council's Statement of organization, practices, 
and procedures (SOPP), or by a formal charge to the committee made by 
the chair and recorded in the Council's minutes, to assist it in 
carrying out its functions. An AP may include individuals who are not 
members of the Council.
* * * * *
    Fishing industry advisory committee (FIAC) means an advisory group 
formed and selected by a regional fishery management council under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(3)(A) and formally 
designated in the Council's SOPP or by a formal charge to the FIAC made 
by the chair and recorded in the Council's minutes. A FIAC is not an 
``advisory panel'' as defined under this section.
* * * * *
    Region means one of six NMFS Regional Offices responsible for 
administering the management and development of marine resources of the 
United States in their respective geographical regions.
    Regional Administrator means the Administrator of one of the six 
NMFS Regions described in Table 1 to Sec.  600.502, or a designee.
* * * * *
    Science and Research Director (also referred to as ``Center 
Director'') means the Director of one of the six NMFS Fisheries Science 
Centers described in Table 1 to Sec.  600.502, or a designee.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  600.15:
    a. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(15) as paragraphs 
(a)(11) through (a)(17), respectively.
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(5) through (a)(8) as paragraphs 
(a)(6) through (a)(9), respectively.
    c. Add new paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.15  Other acronyms.

    (a) * * *
    (5) CCC-Council coordination committee
* * * * *
    (10) FIAC-Fishing industry advisory committee
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  600.105, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.105  Intercouncil boundaries.

* * * * *
    (b) Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Councils. The boundary begins 
at the seaward boundary between the States of Virginia and North 
Carolina (36[deg]33'01.0'' N. lat), and proceeds due east to the point 
of intersection with the outward boundary of the EEZ as specified in 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  600.115, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.115  Statement of organization, practices, and procedures 
(SOPP).

* * * * *
    (b) Amendments to current SOPPs must be consistent with the 
guidelines in this section, subpart C of this part, the terms and 
conditions of the cooperative agreement (the funding agreement between 
the Council and NOAA that establishes Council funding and mandates 
specific requirements regarding the use of those funds), the statutory 
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. 
Upon approval of a Council's SOPP amendment by the Secretary, a notice 
of availability must be published in the Federal Register that includes 
an Internet address from which the amended SOPP may be read and 
downloaded and a mailing address to

[[Page 59150]]

which the public may write to request copies.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 600.117 is added to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec.  600.117  Council coordination committee (CCC).

    (a) The Councils may establish a Council coordination committee 
(CCC) consisting of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of 
each of the eight Councils or other Council members or staff, in order 
to discuss issues of relevance to all Councils.
    (b) The CCC is not subject to the requirements of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Procedures for announcing and 
conducting open and closed meetings of the CCC shall be in accordance 
with Sec.  600.135.

0
7. In Sec.  600.125, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.125  Budgeting, funding, and accounting.

    (a) Council grant activities are governed by 15 CFR part 14 
(Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with 
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit and 
Commercial Organizations), 2 CFR part 230 (Cost Principles for Non-
Profit Organizations), 15 CFR part 14 (Audit Requirements for 
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-Profit Organizations), 
and the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 600.133 is added to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec.  600.133  Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    (a) Each Council shall establish, maintain, and appoint the members 
of an SSC to assist it in the development, collection, evaluation, and 
peer review of such statistical, biological, economic, social, and 
other scientific information as is relevant to such Council's 
development and amendment of any fishery management plan.
    (b) Each SSC shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice 
for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for 
acceptable biological catch, preventing overfishing, maximum 
sustainable yield, and achieving rebuilding targets, and reports on 
stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, social and economic 
impacts of management measures, and sustainability of fishing 
practices.
    (c) Members appointed by the Councils to the SSCs shall be Federal 
employees, State employees, academicians, or independent experts and 
shall have strong scientific or technical credentials and experience.
    (d) An SSC shall hold its meetings in conjunction with the meetings 
of the Council, to the extent practicable.

0
8a. Section 600.134 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  600.134  Stipends.

    Stipends are available, subject to the availability of 
appropriations, to members of committees formally designated as SSCs 
under Sec. 301(g)(1)(a) or APs under Sec. 302(g)(2) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act who are not employed by the Federal Government or a State 
marine fisheries agency. For the purposes of this section, a state 
marine fisheries agency includes any state or tribal agency that has 
conservation, management, or enforcement responsibility for any marine 
fishery resource.

0
9. In Sec.  600.135, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  600.135  Meeting procedures.

    (a) Regular meetings. Public notice of a regular meeting, including 
the meeting agenda, of each Council, CCC, SSC, AP, FIAC, or other 
committees established under Magnuson-Stevens Act, Sec. 302(g), must be 
published in the Federal Register at least 14 calendar days prior to 
the meeting date. Appropriate notice by any means that will result in 
wide publicity in the major fishing ports of the region (and in other 
major fishing ports having a direct interest in the affected fishery) 
must be given. E-mail notification and website postings alone are not 
sufficient. The published agenda of a regular meeting may not be 
modified to include additional matters for Council action without 
public notice given at least 14 calendar days prior to the meeting 
date, unless such modification is necessary to address an emergency 
under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in which case public 
notice shall be given immediately. Drafts of all regular public meeting 
notices must be received by NMFS headquarters office at least 23 
calendar days before the first day of the regular meeting. Councils 
must ensure that all public meetings are accessible to persons with 
disabilities, and that the public can make timely requests for language 
interpreters or other auxiliary aids at public meetings.
    (b) Emergency meetings. Drafts of emergency public notices must be 
transmitted to the NMFS headquarters office at least 5 working days 
prior to the first day of the emergency meeting. Although notices of 
and agendas for emergency meetings are not required to be published in 
the Federal Register, notices of emergency meetings must be promptly 
announced through any means that will result in wide publicity in the 
major fishing ports of the region. E-mail notification and website 
postings alone are not sufficient.
    (c) Closed meetings. After proper notification by any means that 
will result in wide publicity in the major fishing ports within the 
region and, having included in the notification the time and place of 
the meeting and the reason for closing any meeting or portion thereof 
to the public, a Council, CCC, SSC, AP, FIAC, or other committees:
    (1) Must close any meeting, or portion thereof, that concerns 
information bearing a national security classification.
    (2) May close any meeting, or portion thereof, that concerns 
matters or information pertaining to national security, employment 
matters, or briefings on litigation in which the Council is interested.
    (3) May close any meeting, or portion thereof, that concerns 
internal administrative matters other than employment. Examples of 
other internal administrative matters include candidates for 
appointment to AP, SSC, and other subsidiary bodies and public decorum 
or medical conditions of members of a Council or its subsidiary bodies. 
In deciding whether to close a portion of a meeting to discuss internal 
administrative matters, the Council, CCC, SSC, AP, FIAC, or other 
committees should consider not only the privacy interests of 
individuals whose conduct or qualifications may be discussed, but also 
the interest of the public in being informed of Council operations and 
actions.
    (d) Without the notice required by paragraph (c) of this section, a 
Council, CCC, SSC, AP, FIAC, or other committees may briefly close a 
portion of a meeting to discuss employment or other internal 
administrative matters. The closed portion of a meeting that is closed 
without notice may not exceed two hours.
    (e) Before closing a meeting or portion thereof, the Council, CCC, 
SSC, AP, FIAC, or other committees should consult with the NOAA Office 
of General Counsel to ensure that the matters to be discussed fall 
within the exceptions to the requirement to hold public meetings 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 600.140 is added to subpart B to read as follows:

[[Page 59151]]

Sec.  600.140  Procedure for proposed regulations.

    (a) Each Council must establish a written procedure for proposed 
regulations consistent with section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
The procedure must describe how the Council deems proposed regulations 
necessary or appropriate for the purposes of implementing a fishery 
management plan or a plan amendment, or making modifications to 
regulations implementing a fishery management plan or plan amendment. 
In addition, the procedure must describe how the Council submits 
proposed regulations to the Secretary.
    (b) The Councils must include the procedure for proposed 
regulations in its SOPP, see Sec.  600.115, or other written 
documentation that is available to the public.

0
11. In Sec.  600.150, add paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.150  Disposition of records.

* * * * *
    (b) Each Council is required to maintain documents generally 
available to the public on its Internet site. Documents for posting 
must include: fishery management plans and their amendments for the 
fisheries for which the Council is responsible, drafts of fishery 
management plans and plan amendments under consideration, analysis of 
actions the Council has under review, minutes or official reports of 
past meetings of the Council and its committees, materials provided by 
the Council staff to Council members in preparation for meetings, and 
other Council documents of interest to the public. For documents too 
large to maintain on the Web site, not available electronically, or 
seldom requested, the Council must provide copies of the documents for 
viewing at the Council office during regular business hours or may 
provide the documents through the mail.

0
12. Section 600.207 is added to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  600.207  Pacific Fishery Management Council Tribal Indian 
representative and alternate.

    (a) The tribal Indian representative to the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council may designate an alternate during the period of the 
representative's term. The designee must be knowledgeable concerning 
tribal rights, tribal law, and the fishery resources of the 
geographical area concerned.
    (b) New or revised designations of an alternate by the tribal 
Indian representative must be delivered in writing to the appropriate 
NMFS Regional Administrator and the Council chair at least 48 hours 
before the designee may vote on any issue before the Council. In that 
written document, the tribal Indian representative must indicate how 
the designee meets the knowledge requirements under paragraph (a) of 
this section.

0
13. In Sec.  600.210 revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.210  Terms of Council members.

* * * * *
    (c) A member who has completed three consecutive terms will be 
eligible for appointment to another term one full year after completion 
of the third consecutive term.

0
14. In Sec.  600.215, redesignate paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) as 
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), respectively; add paragraph (c); and 
revise paragraph (b)(5) and the newly redesignated paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  600.215  Council nomination and appointment procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) When the terms of both an obligatory member and an at-large 
member expire concurrently, the Governor of the state holding the 
expiring obligatory seat may indicate that the nominees who were not 
selected for appointment to the obligatory seat may be considered for 
appointment to an at-large seat, provided that the resulting total 
number of nominees submitted by that governor for the expiring at-large 
seat is no fewer than three different nominees.
* * * * *
    (c) Nominees to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. (1) 
The Governors of States submitting nominees to the Secretary for 
appointment to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council shall 
include:
    (i) At least one nominee each from the commercial, recreational, 
and charter fishing sectors, except that an individual who owns or 
operates a fish farm outside the United States shall not be considered 
to be a representative of the commercial or recreational sector; and
    (ii) At least one other individual who is knowledgeable regarding 
the conservation and management of fisheries resources in the 
jurisdiction of the Council.
    (2) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, if the Secretary determines that the list of names 
submitted by the Governor does not meet the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, the Secretary shall:
    (i) Publish a notice in the Federal Register asking the residents 
of that State to submit the names and pertinent biographical data of 
individuals who would meet the requirements of this section that were 
not met for appointment to the Council; and
    (ii) Add the name of any qualified individual submitted by the 
public who meets the requirements of this section that were not met to 
the list of names submitted by the Governor.
    (3) The requirements of this paragraph (c) shall expire at the end 
of fiscal year 2012, meaning through September 30, 2012.
* * * * *
    (e) Nomination deadlines. Nomination packages (governors' letters 
and completed nomination kits) must be forwarded by express mail under 
a single mailing to arrive at the address specified by the Assistant 
Administrator by March 15. For appointments outside the normal cycle, 
the Secretary will provide a deadline for receipt of nominations to the 
affected Council and state governors.
    (1) Obligatory seats. (i) The Governor of the state for which the 
term of an obligatory seat is expiring should submit the names of at 
least three qualified individuals to fill that seat by the March 15 
deadline. The Secretary will appoint to the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council a representative of an Indian tribe from a list of no fewer 
than three individuals submitted by the tribal Indian governments.
    (ii) If the Governor or tribal Indian governments fail to provide a 
nomination letter and at least three complete nomination kits by March 
15, the obligatory seat will remain vacant until all required 
information has been received and processed and the Secretary has made 
the appointment.
    (2) At-large seats. (i) If a Governor chooses to submit nominations 
for an at-large seat, he/she must submit lists that contain at least 
three qualified nominees for each vacant seat. A nomination letter and 
a nomination kit for each qualified nominee must be forwarded by 
express mail under a single mailing to arrive at the address specified 
by the Assistant Administrator by March 15.
    (ii) Nomination packages that are not substantially complete by 
March 15 may be returned to the nominating Governor. At-large members 
will be appointed from among the nominations submitted by the governors 
who complied with the nomination requirements.
* * * * *

[[Page 59152]]


0
15. Section 600.22