|
OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES:
Introduction and Contents
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
. National Marine Fisheries Service TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS A. INTRODUCTION. This document is NOAA's "Operational Guidelines for the Fishery Management Plan Process," originally issued in September 1979 and revised in 1983, 1988, 1992, and again in 1997 to include procedures necessary under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). It brings together the efforts of many individuals and governmental entities over the years to assist in the development, review, and implementation of fishery management plans (FMPs). These efforts reflect passage of Pub. L. 97-453, Pub. L. 99-659, Pub. L. 101-627, and, in 1996, Pub. L. 104-297, which amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to alter the process substantially. These actions have added impetus to improving the quality of FMPs, to producing a clearer understanding of the laws affecting the FMP process, and to simplifying and speeding the flow of work directed to the final implementation of an FMP. In addition, legislative and administrative actions taken to improve public decision making, increase informed public participation, and reduce regulatory burdens continue to affect the quality, timeliness, and documentation of FMPs significantly. Accordingly, the requirements of the following have been integrated into the Operational Guidelines: Administrative Procedure Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Executive Orders 12612, 12630, and 12866. Guidelines have been issued, based on the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to assist in the preparation, review, and implementation of FMPs (50 FR part 600, subpart D). Other statutes related to natural resource management also influence the FMP process to varying degrees: Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Each Act or E.O. has been implemented separately by other agency guidelines or regulations; policies relevant to the FMP process have been included in this document. In describing the more formal aspects of the process, there is no intention to preclude the continuation of successful informal relationships among Regional Fishery Management Council (Council), Region, Center, and Headquarters staffs of NMFS. Such cooperation is essential for the effective and efficient operation of a rapid review and implementation procedure. While the Magnuson-Stevens Act places certain time requirements on the review and implementation of FMPs/amendments once they have been submitted for Secretarial review, and the guidelines suggest timeframes for agency advance review of draft package, there is no limitation placed upon the time that might be needed for the careful preparation of FMPs, their amendments, and all related documents. Time is available for dedicated and thorough work at the draft stage, and is absolutely necessary for a successful review and implementation process. Modifications and refinements of these guidelines will be forthcoming as circumstances and experience indicate the need. NAMES,
ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS. Entities A Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA AS Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA AGC/L&R Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation, DOC Center. One of five Fishery Science Centers research centers, NMFS, which report to the Regional Administrators, which oversee the operations of approximately 25 laboratories throughout the United States CEQ Council on Environmental Quality Council Regional Fishery Management Council DOC Department of Commerce DOI Department of the Interior DOS Department of State EPA Environmental Protection Agency F Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA F/SF Office of Sustainable Fisheries F/SF1 Highly Migratory Species Management Division, F/SF F/SF3 Domestic Fisheries Division, F/SF F/SF4 International Fisheries Division, F/SF F/SF5 Regulatory Services Division, F/SF F/HC Office of Habitat Conservation F/OM Office of Operations, Management, and Information F/PR Office of Protected Resources F/ST Office of Science and Technology F/ST1 Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, F/ST FWS Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI GC General Counsel, NOAA GCF Assistant General Counsel for Fisheries, NOAA GCRA Regional Attorney, NOAA HQ Headquarters Office, NMFS, Silver Spring, Maryland N/ORM3 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOS National Ocean Service, NOAA OA1x1 Information Resources Management, NOAA OFR Office of the Federal Register OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB OMB Office of Management and Budget OMO Office of Management and Organization, DOC PSP Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, NEPA Coordinator, NOAA RA Regional Administrator, NMFS Region One of five regional offices, NMFS, which report to the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, responsible for administering the management and development of marine resources in the United States Secretary Secretary of Commerce, DOC SBA Small Business Administration USCG U.S. Coast Guard EA Environmental Assessment, NEPA EIS Environmental Impact Statement, NEPA; DEIS is draft document, FEIS is final document, SEIS is supplemental document E.O. Executive Order FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, RFA FMP Fishery Management Plan; DFMP is draft document FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact, NEPA FR Federal Register; the publication for Federal regulations IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, RFA NAO 216-6 Environmental Review Procedures NOI Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS, NEPA RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis (E.O. 12866) RIR Regulatory Impact Review; DRIR is draft document SF 83-I Standard form for PRA submission of request for approval of collection of information
Fishery management
terms DAH Domestic annual harvest DAP Domestic annual processing EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone FMU Fishery management unit JVP Joint venture processing MSY Maximum sustainable yield OY Optimum yield TAC Total allowable catch TALFF Total allowable level of
foreign fishing Legislation CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act ESA Endangered Species Act MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act OVERVIEW. Organization The FMP process is described in five phases: Phase
I--Planning; Phase II--Preparation of Draft Documents; Phase
III--Public Review and Council Adoption; Phase IV--Final FMP/Amendment
Review and Approval; Proposed Regulations and Final Rulemaking;
and Phase V--Continuing and Contingency Fishery Management,
which includes various actions related to the framework concept,
types of amendments to regulations, the use of the emergency
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and Secretarial FMP/amendments.
Each phase is introduced by a brief rationale, description of
the actions involved or supplemental information, followed by
an event schedule of these actions, if appropriate. Actions
are numbered sequentially for reference purposes; however, some
actions may occur simultaneously. The Appendices include supplemental
material on the requirements of other applicable laws (including
NAO 216-6) and NMFS policy guidelines. Other material will be
added to future revisions as it becomes available. Word Usage Issues letter--means a letter prepared by the
RA for a Council at the Phase III stage, describing the critical
and substantive issues; used in draft as the basis for Region/F/SF3/GCRA/GCF
conference call or meeting, and in final as the summary of agency
position on the draft package. General Roles
and Responsibilities Role of F/SF3 The role of F/SF3 varies according to the stage
of the process. It conducts reviews, in parallel with the Region,
of advance, draft, and final FMPs/amendments, concentrating
on national and approvability issues; coordinates reviews within
DOC/NOAA/NMFS and with Washington, D.C., reviewers (e.g., USCG,
DOS, Marine Mammal Commission); and provides guidance to, and
works with, the Councils, Regions, and other NMFS and NOAA offices
to improve existing national policies and procedures for review
and implementation of FMPs and amendments. F/SF3 provides staff
advice to the Regions and F/SF on the approvability of FMPs
and other documents. F/SF3 reviews, distributes, and recommends
decisions on regulations and associated regulatory documents
(e.g., DRIRs, IRFAs, etc.); provides information on management
actions to NOAA Offices of Public Affairs and Congressional
Affairs; and coordinates the comments of NOAA, DOC, and other
agencies with the Regions. F/SF3 maintains part of the administrative
record system, and provides information to F/SF5 for the semiannual
regulatory agenda. Role of F/SF5 The Regions review FMPs/amendments to determine
consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable
laws. The Regions are the principal NMFS contacts with the Councils,
and may provide guidance and assistance to the Councils in preparing
FMPs, regulations, or other documents. The Regions also have
the responsibility for preparing all decision documents (e.g.,
decision memos, transmittals associated with regulatory action);
for ensuring that the Councils are aware of the requirements
for the submission package and satisfactory regulatory and environmental
analyses (i.e., RIR, IRFA, EA/EIS); and for certifying that
all documents are adequate before approving any FMP or amendment.
The Region is responsible for the preparation of any supporting
statement for collection of information under PRA, but consults
with the appropriate Center as necessary. The Center certifies
definitions of overfishing required under 50 CFR part 600.310.
Regions and Centers maintain part of the rulemaking record. Role of GC Other Applicable Laws The following sections briefly describe the purpose
of the various statutes and E.O.s and how they affect the FMP
process. The list provides some insights into the complex and
sometimes competing goals and schedules of the system. More
detailed sections (referenced below) as to how each specifically
affects the FMPs, amendments, and regulations--and what to do
about it--appear later in this document. Effect on FMP process: The APA requires public comment on most actions, but does not specify the length of the comment period; a 30-day delay in effectiveness date is required for most final rules. Exceptions are provided for waiving, for good cause, the public comment period and/or delayed effectiveness period. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for a public comment period for proposed regulations of 15 to 60 days. NMFS policy is that a 45-day comment period is standard for proposed rules that would implement an FMP/amendment and a 30-day comment period is standard for proposed rules for regulatory amendments. b. CZMA. The principal objective of the CZMA is to encourage and assist states in developing coastal management programs, to coordinate state activities, and to safeguard regional and national interests in the coastal zone. Section 307(c) of the CZMA requires that any Federal activity affecting the land or water uses or natural resources of a state's coastal zone be consistent with that state's approved coastal management program, to the maximum extent practicable. Effect on FMP process: Requires a determination
that an FMP/amendment or regulating action has no effect on
the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone,
or is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with an affected
state's approved coastal management program. The consistency
determination must be provided to state agencies at least 90
days prior to final approval of the Federal action, unless NMFS
and the state agency agree to an alternative notification schedule
(See Appendix 2.a.) Effect on FMP process: Requires that an early determination be made as to the significance of each regulatory action, which must be concurred in by OMB, and requires that each significant regulatory action be reviewed by OMB. The Regulatory Impact Review addresses many of the items in the regulatory philosophy and principles in this Order. (See Appendix 2.d.) d. ESA. The ESA provides for the protection and conservation of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. The program is administered jointly by DOI (terrestrial and freshwater species) and DOC (most marine species). Effect on FMP process: NMFS (and FWS, if applicable) should provide a list of endangered and threatened species, critical habitat(s), and species proposed for listing to Councils so that Councils can assess whether fisheries, as they are managed under FMPs, may affect listed species or critical habitat and in some cases, species or habitat proposed for listing or for designation. NMFS should assist in assessing the impacts (if any) on protected species and critical habitat. Councils will include an impact assessment in draft FMPs and amendments or in the EA/EIS, that may serve as the biological assessment for consultation. If NMFS determines, based on the impact assessment or other documentation, that the fishery may affect listed species or critical habitat, NMFS (or FWS) will determine whether formal consultation under the ESA is necessary. (See Phase II, Section 5.7.; Appendix 2.b.) Measures to minimize adverse impacts should be included in FMPs or amendments. e. MMPA. The MMPA establishes a moratorium on the taking and importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products, with certain exceptions. Responsibility is divided between DOC (whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions) and DOI (other marine mammals) to authorize takings under limited circumstances, including incidental takings during commercial fishing. Effect on FMP process: If the fishery affects marine mammal population(s), the potential impacts must be analyzed in the EA/EIS. Councils may also be requested to consider actions to mitigate adverse impacts. (See Phase II, Section 5.8.) f. NEPA. The NEPA requires that the effects of major Federal activities on the human environment be assessed. Federal activities include not only approval of FMPs, but also issuing permits and licenses. Activities conducted by private individuals that Federal agencies authorize are de facto Federal activities. NEPA's basic purpose is to insure that Federal officials weigh and give appropriate consideration to environmental values in policy formulation, decision making, and administrative actions, and that the public is provided adequate opportunity to review and comment on the major Federal actions. NEPA requires preparation of an EIS for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment and documents that finding for public consideration and comment before a decision. An EA is prepared for an action that will not significantly affect the human environment. Effect on FMP process: If a draft EIS must be prepared, the notice of availability of a final EIS must be published 30 days before an Agency decision is made on the FMP/amendment; or, if an EA is prepared, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) must be made at the time of the Agency decision. NEPA and Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for schedule, format, and public participation are compatible and they enable one activity or document to fulfill both obligations. (See Appendix 2.e.--NAO 216-6, and Phase II, Section 5.2.) g. PRA. The PRA requires agencies to consider and minimize recordkeeping and reporting burdens when collecting information from the public. Effect on FMP process: If the FMP/amendment requires
any form of information collection, proposed rules must be accompanied
by a request for OMB approval to collect information (83-I)
and such a request must be cleared by NOAA and DOC before the
proposed rule can be published. Final rules implementing information
collection requirements must be accompanied by one of the following:
(1) A revised 83-I and supporting statement (if OMB filed comments
on the information collection at the proposed rule stage); (2)
the insertion of the OMB control number in the appropriate section
of the final rule text and secondary instructions to add the
control number to 15 CFR part 902, if appropriate (if provided
by OMB during the proposed rule stage); (3) a complete 83-I
package, if OMB took neither of the above discretionary actions
during the proposed rule stage; or (4) if OMB approval is not
received, the final rule is published without the OMB number
and, when approval is received, an FR document is published
to make the information collection effective. (See Appendices
2.c and 2.f, and Phase II, Section 5.5.) Effect on FMP process: Like E.O. 12866, the RFA
requires an analysis of costs, benefits, and effective alternatives.
RFA also requires an agency to minimize the impact of its rule
on small entities. It does this through the requirement to prepare
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for rules that will or may
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The IRFA is reviewed by SBA during the comment
period on the proposed rule. If the rule has no significant
effect on a substantial number of small entities, AGC/L&R
must so certify to SBA and no IRFA is prepared. (See Appendix
2.d; Phase II, Section 5.4; and Phase IV, Section IV-2.) Effect on FMP process: Because state officials
are voting members of Councils, most FMPs/amendments have state
support and their implementing regulations would not contain
policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant
preparation of a federalism assessment. Generally, a federalism
assessment is necessary if a state official opposes an action
because of federalism concerns. The document is prepared by
the RA, in consultation with the Council, and submitted by F
to DOC for certification of compliance. Any principal state
official opposed to adoption of an FMP/amendment may file a
dissenting report explaining the nature of the state's objection
and its relation to the policies of the E.O. Effect on FMP process: Management measures limiting
fishing seasons, areas, quotas, fish size limits, and bag limits
do not appear to have any taking implications and thus no takings
implication assessment is required to be prepared. (See Department
of Commerce Guidelines for the Evaluation and Risk Avoidance
of Unanticipated Takings, May 1990.) There is the potential
for takings if a fishing gear is prohibited, because fishermen
who desire to leave a fishery might be unable to sell their
investment, or if a fisherman is prohibited by Federal action
from exercising property rights granted by a state. Clearance
of a regulatory action must include a takings statement and,
if appropriate, a Takings Implication Assessment prepared by
GCRA. Overview
of Responsibilities Under Certain
Other Applicable Laws Phase I . Preliminary estimates of burden hours should
be made for the Information Collection Budget. . Region solicits comments on the draft recordkeeping/reporting requirements from Center and F/SF5. . Council submits revised recordkeeping/reporting
requirements for informal agency review as part of the draft
FMP/amendment package. . Region distributes draft recordkeeping/reporting requirements for review to appropriate field offices; F/SF3 distributes them to HQ reviewers and appropriate agencies; F/SF5 determines whether NOAA/DOC review is warranted and, if so, transmits the draft to OA1x1 for NOAA/DOC comments. . F/SF3 receives, analyzes, transmits comments to the Region, which prepares a draft issues letter to the Council (includes PRA issues, if any). . Region writes/sends the final issues letter to the Council. . Council revises recordkeeping/reporting requirements,
per NMFS and public comments, adopts and submits the 83-I and
supporting statement as part of the final FMP/amendment package
for Secretarial review. Early submission of the request to collect
information is strongly recommended. Phase IV Council submits the FMP/amendment package to the RA, with the transmittal date determined by the RA. . Begin the Magnuson-Stevens Act Secretarial review period. If not already submitted, RA sends the SF83-I and supporting statement to F/SF5. F/SF5 distributes the SF83-I and supporting statements to reviewers and appropriate agencies, including F/SF3. . F/SF5 prepares the transmittal for F signature; sends SF83-I, supporting statement, and proposed rule to OA1x1 (NOAA) for formal review; and notifies F/SF3. . NOAA completes its review and sends the paperwork package to OMO (DOC). . F/SF5 checks the consistency of any revisions to the SF83-I and supporting statement, and sends the package to OA1x1. . DOC completes its review of the SF83-I, sends it to OMB, and issues a docket number to F/SF3 to publish the proposed rule. . F signs the proposed rule, which is published for a 45-day comment period for a rule that would implement an FMP/amendment. . At the end of the public comment period on the proposed rule, a decision meeting (conference call) may be held to resolve any approvability issues (including SF83-I), if necessary. Region modifies the SF83-I, if necessary. . If information collection requirements change per public comment, the RA includes the revised 83-I with the decision package, so noting in the accompanying decision memo. . F/SF5 notifies F/SF3 of OMB approval or disapproval of the PRA request (OMB has 30 days to approve/disapprove). . OMB approves and issues a control number, disapproves, or provides comments on the SF83-I to DOC. If necessary, the Council, with Region and F/SF5 assistance, revises the SF83-I. . If OMB provided comments, DOC completes its review of the revised SF83-I, and sends it to OMB. . RA approves the FMP/amendment; F concurs. . Final rule is filed with the OFR. If the SF83-I
was approved by OMB, the final rule will contain the approved
information collection requirements and the OMB control number.
If not yet approved, the information collection measures will
not be effective until OMB approval is obtained and the OMB
control numbers are published in the FR. A currently valid OMB
control number must be displayed on all collections of information.
If disapproved, the information collection measures must be
withdrawn by notification in the FR. National
Environmental Policy Act Phase I . Council holds scoping meeting(s) that may be in conjunction with scheduled meetings of the Council or its advisory groups. . Council decides whether an (S)EIS or EA should be prepared, if sufficient information is available to make this determination. If an EIS is to be prepared, the Council prepares a notice of intent, which F/SF3 processes for FR publication. . Council begins preparation of the appropriate
environmental document in consultation with the RA (including
ESA issues). Phase II . Council submits the D(S)EIS/EA for informal
agency review, including ESA issues, as part of the draft package.
Phase III . DEIS must be acceptable for filing before full review of the rest of draft package begins. . F/SF3 prepares transmittal letters for filing (including a letter to All Interested Governmental Agencies and Public Groups), obtains PSP clearance, and files the DEIS with EPA. . EPA publishes a Notice of Availability of DEIS in the FR; 45-day public comment period begins. . Council distributes the DEIS (with letter to All Interested Governmental Agencies and Public Groups) to the public. . If hearings on the DEIS are held, notice of scheduled hearings is published in the FR; hearings may be in conjunction with scheduled meetings of the Council. . Region and F/SF3 review the D(S)EIS or EA for critical and substantive issues; F/SF advises the Region of NMFS HQ position. . Region prepares a draft issues letter to the Council (includes ESA issues). . Region writes/sends the final issues letter to the Council. . Council prepares the NEPA document to reflect FMP/amendment changes and NMFS and public comments. . Council adopts the (S)EIS) or EA and submits
it to the RA for review under NEPA. If it is changed substantially,
a (S)EIS may need to be placed available for public comment
as a D(S)EIS for a 45-day comment period. . Begin Magnuson-Stevens Act Secretarial review period. . If an EA is included, the Region and F/SF3 distribute the EA to reviewers and appropriate agencies, including PSP. . If there is an (S)EIS, the final (S)EIS must be filed with EPA to ensure that the Notice of the F(S)EIS is published in the FR 30 days prior to the decision on the action. Consultation by the RA, F/SF, and GCF/GCRA must occur prior to this date to determine the adequacy of the final (S)EIS. . F/SF3 prepares the necessary transmittal letters for filing and distribution, obtains NOAA clearance, and files the (S)EIS with EPA. Council/Region make the F(S)EIS and PSP letter available. . After the end of the public comment period on the FMP/amendment, a decision meeting (conference call) is held, if necessary, to resolve any approvability issues, including NEPA. Region considers NMFS comments on the EA. RA begins preparation of the draft decision memo, including the preliminary determination of NEPA compliance. . If Region and HQ disagreements on NEPA compliance are unresolved, F/SF3 and/or GCF may write a dissent memo; F/SF confers with the RA and F/SF3 to resolve any remaining differences. . RA verifies and makes the preliminary determination of NEPA compliance, when applicable, and makes a recommendation in the decision memo accompanying the final action package. . RA approves/disapproves/partially approves the FMP/amendment and transmits it to F. . F signs the FONSI, when applicable, and transmits
it to PSP for clearance. When PSP approves and returns the FONSI,
F/SF3 provides it to the RA, or returns it to the applicable
Council, for distribution to the public, upon request. E.O. 12866,
E.O. 12612, E.O. 12630, and RFA Phase I Phase II . Council submits the DRIR/IRFA for informal agency
review as part of the draft FMP/amendment package. . Region distributes the DRIR/IRFA for review to appropriate field offices; F/SF3 distributes to HQ reviewers and appropriate agencies. . F/SF3 receives, analyzes, and transmits comments to the Region, which prepares a draft issues letter to Council (includes DRIR/IRFA issues). . F/SF advises the Region of NMFS HQ position. . Region writes/sends the final issues letter to the Council. . Council revises the DRIR/IRFA, as appropriate and adopts and submits it for formal Secretarial review as part of the final FMP/amendment package. . An E.O. 12866 listing document, stating the
initial determination of significance under the E.O., must be
drafted by the Region and forwarded to GCF (copied to F/SF3)
for review and forwarding to DOC for consideration by OIRA. Council submits the FMP/amendment package to the RA, with the transmittal date determined by the RA. . Begin Magnuson-Stevens Act Secretarial review period. . Region and F/SF3 distribute to reviewers and appropriate agencies: the DRIR/IRFA, including sending the IRFA to SBA by F/SF, if regulations would or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; draft federalism assessment, if there are significant federalism implications; and consideration of takings implications, if applicable. . F transmits the "no significant impact" certification memo to AGC/L&R (DOC to SBA), if applicable. . RA receives and considers NMFS/NOAA/DOC/SBA comments on the DRIR/IRFA (if not certified significant under RFA). . End Magnuson-Stevens Act public comment period on the FMP/amendment; decision meeting (conference call), if necessary, is held to resolve any approvability issues (including DRIR/IRFA). Region/Council begins preparation of the FRFA. . RA certifies adequacy of the RIR/FRFA and makes determinations reflected in the determinations section of the decision memo accompanying the final action package. RA transmits the federalism assessment and Takings Implication Assessment, if applicable. . F/SF confers with RA, GCF, and F/SF3, if necessary, to resolve differences. . RA approves/disapproves/partially approves the FMP/amendment and transmits it to F for concurrence. . For nonsignificant actions, AGC/L&R sends
a certification to SBA, if it was not previously sent. For a
significant action, F/SF sends the FRFA to SBA, if not previously
sent. Endangered
Species Act Phase I . If endangered or threatened species or critical habitat may be affected, NMFS will determine whether a formal consultation is necessary, and if so, will initiate consultation and, as appropriate, request formal consultation with FWS. . If formal consultations are not required, the RA will provide for the record an informal consultation concurrence letter. . If formal consultations are required, the RA will initiate consultation with NMFS and request formal consultation with FWS, if appropriate. . Council adopts FMP/amendment documenting ESA
determinations and incorporating measures identified in the
biological opinion and incidental take statement. . Begin Magnuson-Stevens Act Secretarial review period. . Region and F/SF3 distribute documents (including ESA consultations), to reviewers and appropriate agencies (e.g., F/PR, Marine Mammal Commission). . Public comment period begins on the FMP/amendment and proposed rule. . Decision meeting (conference call) is held, if necessary, to resolve any approvability issues, including ESA. . RA approves/disapproves/partially approves the FMP/amendment and transmits to F for concurrence. . F concurs in RA's decision on the FMP/amendment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regulatory Streamlining - Operational Guidelines |
