42 



action or inaction. In other words, fisheries for these species 

 take place predominately in state waters, and thus the Secretary 

 is unable to invoke the preemption procedures of Section 306(b). 

 Therefore, we believe it is imperative that an alternative 

 legislative mechanism, similar to the approach offered in the 

 draft bill, be provided to deal with situations in which one or 

 mpre states (whether by their adverse actions or inactions) are 

 able to stymie a cooperative interstate management strategy 

 supported by the majority of cooperating states. 



In particular, the populations of weakfish and summer 

 flounder have experienced very high levels of fishing mortality 

 in recent years. Since immediate reduction of exploitation rates 

 can only be accomplished through regulatory action by the states, 

 passage of a mechanism similar to the draft bill would provide 

 significant legislative support and incentive for them to 

 implement appropriate management measures for these species. 



While we strongly support a strengthened coastal fishery 

 management program that builds upon the established expertise of 

 the ASMFC and its constituent states, some changes to the draft 

 bill are necessary to insure its constitutionality and to further 

 improve its effectiveness. 



