[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 111 (Monday, June 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32526-32547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1328]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 070717348-7766-02]
RIN 0648-AV60


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Annual Catch Limits; National 
Standard Guidelines

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes revisions to the guidelines for National 
Standard 1 (NS1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA). This action is necessary to provide guidance on 
how to comply with new annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability 
measure (AM) requirements for ending overfishing of fisheries managed 
by federal fishery management plans (FMPs). It also clarifies the 
relationship between ACLs, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum 
yield (OY), and other applicable reference points. The intent of this 
action is to facilitate compliance with requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to end and prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks 
and achieve OY.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AV60, by any of 
the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov;
    <bullet> Fax: 301-713-1193, Attn: Mark Millikin;
    <bullet> Mail: Mark R. Millikin, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
NOAA, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 
13357, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (mark outside of envelope ``Comments on 
Annual Catch Limits proposed rule'');
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic 
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Wordperfect, or 
Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Regulatory Flexibility 
Act Analysis (RFAA) for this proposed rule are available from Mark R. 
Millikin at the address listed above. The RIR/RFAA document is also 
available via the internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/catchlimits.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark R. Millikin, Senior Fishery 
Management Specialist, 301-713-2341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Revisions
II. Acronyms
III. Background
IV. NMFS's Proposed Rule for Further Revisions to NS1 Guidelines in 
2005
V. NMFS's Initial Action on MSRA Requirements for ACLs
VI. MSRA Ending Overfishing Requirements
VII. Reasons for Overfishing and Expectations for ACLs to Prevent/
End Overfishing

[[Page 32527]]

VIII. Definition, Interpretation, and Application of the Term 
``Fishery'' and Its Relevance to ACLs
    A. Stocks in the Fishery
    B. Ecosystem Component Species
    C. Stocks Identified in More Than One FMP
    D. Stock Complexes
IX. Statutory Exceptions to Requirements for ACLs and AMs and 
Flexibility in Application of the NS1 Guidelines
X. MSRA Requirements for SSCs Related to ACLs
XI. MSY, OY, and SDC: A Review
XII. Description of the Relationship of OFL to MSY and ACT to OY
XIII. Definition Framework for OFL, ABC, ACL, and ACT
XIV. Control Rules
XV. Sector ACLs, ACTs, and AMs
XVI. Accountability Measures
XVII. Summary of Items to Include in FMPs
XVIII. Change in Timetable When Establishing a Rebuilding Plan
XIX. Establishing the Length of Time for a Rebuilding Plan
XX. Action When a Stock's Rebuilding Plan Ends and the Stock Is Not 
Rebuilt
XXI. Changes to the definitions of Some Components of MSY
XXII. Social, Economic and Ecological Factors as They Relate to OY
XXIII. Scope of This Proposed Action
XXIV. Republishing Codified Text in Its Entirety
XXV. Classification

I. Overview of Proposed Revisions

    NMFS fulfills the requirements of section 301(b) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act--``The Secretary shall establish advisory guidelines (which 
shall not have the force and effect of law), based on national 
standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans,'' 
with its national standard guidelines that appear at 50 CFR 600.310 
through 50 CFR 600.355. NMFS is proposing revisions to the NS1 
guidelines to address, among other things, new requirements for 
fisheries undergoing overfishing, to have ACLs and AMs to end 
overfishing by 2010, and all fisheries to have ACLs and AMs in place to 
prevent or end overfishing by 2011, and beyond. A stock or stock 
complex may not require an ACL and AMs if it qualifies for a statutory 
exception under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Other proposed revisions to 
the NS1 guidelines include: (1) A description of the relationship 
between MSY, OY, overfishing limits (OFL), acceptable biological catch 
(ABC), ACLs, and annual catch targets (ACTs); (2) guidance on how to 
combine the use of ACLs and AMs for a stock to prevent overfishing when 
possible, and adjust ACTs or ACLs, or both, and AMs, if an ACL is 
exceeded; (3) allowing for inclusion of ecosystem component (EC) 
species in FMPs and, in such cases, guidance for how to classify which 
stocks are ``in the fishery'' and which species are ecosystem 
components; (4) replacing MSY control rules with ABC control rules and 
replacing OY control rules with ACT control rules; (5) new requirements 
for scientific and statistical committees (SSC); (6) changing the 
timeline to prepare new rebuilding plans; (7) revised guidance on how 
to establish rebuilding time targets; and (8) advice on action to take 
at the end of a rebuilding period if a stock is not yet rebuilt.

II. Acronyms

ABC--acceptable biological catch
ACL--annual catch limit
ACT--annual catch target
AM--accountability measures
ANPR--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
B<INF>msy</INF>--MSY stock size
EC--ecosystem component species
EEZ--Exclusive Economic Zone
F<INF>msy</INF>--MSY fishing mortality rate
FMP--fishery management plan
MFMT--maximum fishing mortality threshold
MSA--Magnuson-Stevens Act
MSRA--Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act
MSST--minimum stock size threshold
MSY--maximum sustainable yield
NOI--Notice of Intent
NS1--National Standard 1
OFL--overfishing limit
OY--optimum yield
SDC--status determination criteria
SFA--Sustainable Fisheries Act
SSC--scientific and statistical committee
T<INF>max</INF>--maximum time allowable for rebuilding a stock
T<INF>min</INF>--minimum time for rebuilding a stock
T<INF>target</INF>--target time for rebuilding a stock

III. Background

    The MSA serves as the chief authority for fisheries management in 
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Section 301(b) of the MSA 
requires that ``The Secretary shall establish advisory guidelines 
(which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the 
national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management 
plans.'' Guidelines for the national standards are codified in subpart 
D of 50 CFR part 600. The guidelines for national standards were last 
revised through a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 
1, 1998 (63 FR 24212), by adding revisions to the guidelines for 
National Standards 1 (optimum yield), 2 (scientific information), 4 
(allocations), 5 (efficiency), and 7 (costs and benefits); and adding 
new guidelines for National Standards 8 (communities), 9 (bycatch), and 
10 (safety of life at sea).
    The guidelines for NS1 were revised extensively in the final rule 
published on May 1, 1998, to bring them into conformance with revisions 
to the MSA, as amended in 1996 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). 
In particular, the 1998 revisions to the NS1 guidelines addressed new 
requirements for FMPs brought about by SFA amendments to MSA section 
304(e) (rebuilding overfished fisheries).
    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), which President Bush signed into 
law on January 12, 2007, included new requirements regarding preventing 
and ending overfishing and rebuilding fisheries. Therefore, NMFS is 
proposing revisions to the NS1 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310, to 
integrate these new requirements with existing provisions related to 
overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, and achieving optimum yield.

IV. NMFS's Proposed Rule for Further Revisions to NS1 Guidelines in 
2005

    NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in 
2003 (68 FR 7492, February 14, 2003), and a proposed rule in 2005 (70 
FR 36240, June 22, 2005), in the Federal Register to propose further 
revisions to the NS1 guidelines. NMFS sought to improve the utility of 
the 1998 guidelines in assisting the regional fishery management 
councils, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in the case of a 
Secretarial Amendment or a Secretarial FMP (denoted collectively 
hereafter as ``Councils,'' as 50 CFR 600.305(c)(11) provides that 
``Council'' includes both the regional fishery management councils and 
the Secretary when preparing FMPs or amendments), when establishing or 
revising status determination criteria (SDC) for overfishing and 
overfished definitions for stocks, and constructing or revising 
rebuilding plans for overfished stocks.
    Although NMFS received many public comments on the ANPR and the 
2005 proposed rule, NMFS decided not to pursue publication of a final 
rule when it learned that Congress was preparing an amendment to the 
MSA that seemed likely to revise how to manage stocks undergoing 
overfishing and stocks that need a rebuilding plan. Congress's efforts 
culminated in passage of the 2006 MSRA.

[[Page 32528]]

V. NMFS's Initial Action on MSRA Requirements for ACLs

    NMFS published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) and commencement of a scoping period for ACLs 
and AMs in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7016), with 
a comment period ending date of April 17, 2007. NMFS held nine scoping 
sessions, one associated with each of the eight Regional Fishery 
Management Councils' meetings and one at NMFS Headquarters in Silver 
Spring, MD. Comments that NMFS received are contained in ``Summary of 
Comments Received on NMFS Proposal to Develop Guidance on ACLs and AMs, 
July 2007,'' that is available at the NMFS Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/catchlimits.htm.
    The NOI indicated that an environmental assessment or EIS would be 
prepared for this action. However, NMFS has decided that, for purposes 
of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, a categorical 
exclusion is appropriate for this action. The proposed action would 
provide general guidance on ACL and AM and other requirements, but 
there is considerable diversity in federally-managed fisheries and 
FMPs. Thus, any analysis of the environmental, economic, and social 
impacts of the NS1 guidelines would be highly speculative. Potential 
environmental, economic, and social impacts cannot be meaningfully 
analyzed until the Councils apply the guidelines to specific fisheries 
and FMPs. At that time, the Councils would prepare an EIS or EA, as 
appropriate.

VI. MSRA Ending Overfishing Requirements

    Section 104(a)(10) of the MSRA established new requirements to end 
and prevent overfishing, including ACLs and AMs. Section 303(a)(15) was 
added to the MSA to read as follows: ``establish a mechanism for 
specifying annual catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear 
plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level 
such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures 
to ensure accountability.'' ACLs and AMs are required by fishing year 
2010 if overfishing is occurring in a fishery, and they are required 
for all other fisheries by fishing year 2011.
    In practical terms, given the time it takes to prepare and 
implement an FMP amendment, if the status of one or more stocks in a 
fishery at the end of 2008 is ``subject to overfishing,'' Councils 
should submit ACL and AM mechanisms and actual ACLs for that fishery to 
be effective in fishing year 2010. If overfishing is determined to be 
occurring in a fishery in 2009, Councils should submit ACL and AM 
mechanisms and actual ACLs for that fishery to be effective in fishing 
year 2010, if possible, or in fishing year 2011, at the latest. All 
fisheries must have ACL and AM mechanisms and actual ACLs by the 
fishing year 2011, and beyond. The Secretary should amend Secretarial 
FMPs, to comply with ACL and AM requirements on the same timetable. 
Section 305(c) of the MSA, which was unchanged by MSRA, also provides 
authority to the Secretary to promulgate emergency regulations or 
interim measures necessary to address an emergency or overfishing for 
any fishery without regard to whether an FMP exists for such fishery.
    NMFS recognizes that the phrase, ``at a level such that overfishing 
does not occur'' in section 303(a)(15) of the MSA is subject to 
different interpretations, as reflected in the varying comments 
received during scoping. On the one hand, the phrase could be 
interpreted to mean that overfishing is strictly prohibited at any 
cost. On the other hand, section 303(a)(15) refers to a ``mechanism'' 
for setting ACLs, including AMs, which seems to imply a more dynamic 
process that allows for adjustment of management measures as a fishery 
is carried out. The only way to ensure absolutely no overfishing occurs 
is to stop fishing. As long as fishing occurs, there is a chance for 
occasional instances of overfishing due to scientific uncertainty of 
data, influence of non-fishing factors, and management uncertainty. 
Continued overfishing for a period of years (chronic overfishing), 
presents the greatest danger to the health of fish stocks, and often 
leads to stocks becoming overfished. NMFS has noted that overfished 
stocks with chronic overfishing seem to seldom rebuild, whereas 
overfished stocks that are rarely subject to overfishing have a better 
chance of rebuilding.
    Taking the above considerations into account, NMFS believes that 
the ACL requirement should be interpreted to provide for some 
flexibility given scientific and management uncertainty and other 
factors, but at the same time, must address overfishing and facilitate 
rebuilding. Chronic overfishing can be prevented by ensuring that the 
combination of ACLs and AMs decrease the risk of future overfishing 
each successive time an ACL is exceeded. NMFS thus proposes a 
performance standard such that if catch of a stock exceeds its ACL more 
often than once in the last four years (i.e., more often than 25 
percent of the time), then the system of ACLs, ACTs and AMs should be 
re-evaluated to improve its performance and effectiveness (see Sec.  
600.310(g)(3) in this proposed action). NMFS believes that allowing a 
higher frequency of the ACL being exceeded would not safeguard enough 
against overfishing. A Council could choose a higher performance 
standard (e.g., a stock's catch should not exceed its ACL more often 
than once every five or six years) for a stock that is particularly 
vulnerable to the effects of overfishing.

VII. Reasons for Overfishing and Expectations for ACLs to Prevent/End 
Overfishing

    The ``NMFS Fourth Quarterly Report for 2007 Status of U.S. 
Fisheries'' indicates that 41 stocks managed by federal FMPs were 
undergoing overfishing as of December 31, 2007. Stocks become listed as 
``overfishing'' or remain in an overfishing status for a variety of 
reasons, including:
    1. The goal of the FMP may be to end overfishing over several years 
by gradually reducing fishing mortality rates instead of ending 
overfishing immediately.
    2. Management measures have proven ineffective at ending 
overfishing (e.g., lack of inseason closure authority for the fishery 
or management measures are aimed at achieving a target catch that is 
set too close to the catch amount that results in overfishing, or 
both).
    3. Management measures to address overfishing have not been 
implemented yet.
    4. Recent change in scientific advice (i.e., the Council has not 
had sufficient time to amend the FMP and no automatic measures exist in 
the FMP to make necessary adjustments to end overfishing in the 
subsequent fishing year).
    5. Bycatch mortality in other fisheries has not been addressed 
adequately or is poorly known.
    6. Data sufficient to verify whether or not overfishing is 
occurring are not available, so the existing overfishing determination 
is retained.
    7. International fishing pressure is responsible for the large 
majority of overfishing.
    8. Fishing pressure in state or territorial waters is responsible 
for the large majority of overfishing, federal action alone is not 
sufficient to end overfishing, and managers in the various 
jurisdictions are unable thus far to agree on a concerted approach for 
preventing overfishing.
    NMFS believes that the ACL and AM requirements will address 
overfishing that results from reasons 1, 2, 3, and 4

[[Page 32529]]

above. Better scientific data, along with adequate ACLs and AMs, should 
enable Councils to prevent overfishing for reasons 5 and 6. Stocks that 
are undergoing overfishing for reason 7 would be exempt from the ACL 
requirement (see Sec. Sec.  600.310(h)(2)(ii) and 600.310(k) of this 
proposed action for discussion of international fisheries). There may 
be circumstances where managers in various jurisdictions are unable to 
agree on an ACL and AMs that would end or prevent overfishing for a 
fishery described under reason 8. In such cases, these proposed 
guidelines would require an ACL for the overall fishery, but AMs would 
be implemented only for the portion of the fishery under federal 
management authority.

VIII. Definition, Interpretation, and Application of the Term 
``Fishery'' and Its Relevance to ACLs

    The MSA, as amended by MSRA, requires that a Council shall develop 
ACLs ``for each of its managed fisheries'' (see MSA section 302(h)(6)) 
and as noted earlier, that each FMP have a mechanism for specifying 
ACLs ``at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery'' 
(see MSA section 303(a)(15)). Consistent with these sections of the 
MSA, the proposed NS1 guidelines provide that ACLs and AMs are needed 
for each ``fishery'' under federal FMP management, unless covered by a 
statutory exception.
    The MSA defines ``fishery'' broadly, and this definition did not 
change with the passage of the MSRA. A ``fishery'' is ``one or more 
stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of 
conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of 
geographical, scientific, technical, recreational and economic 
characteristics,'' and ``any fishing of such stocks'' (see MSA section 
3(13) and 50 CFR 600.10). The term ``fishery'' can mean different 
things in different contexts. For example, when dealing with biological 
concepts such as determining a status of overfishing or overfished, the 
NS1 guidelines generally apply at the ``stock or stock complex'' level 
(See, e.g., 50 CFR 600.310(c)(1), (d) (defining MSY and ``overfish'' 
with regard to ``stock or stock complex'') and Sec.  600.305(c)(12) 
(explaining that ``stock or stock complex'' is used as a synonym for 
``fishery'' in NS guidelines). In other instances, such as managing a 
fishery for OY, the term ``fishery'' is viewed more broadly (see 50 CFR 
600.310(f) (referring to OY at the ``fishery'' and not the ``stock or 
stock complex'' level)).
    Given the broad definition of ``fishery,'' the Councils have had, 
and continue to have, considerable discretion in defining the 
``fishery'' under FMPs. Some FMPs include only one or a few stocks 
whereas others include several or hundreds of species. Looking at 
existing FMPs, the primary reasons why stocks are included in FMPs are 
because people seek to harvest them for sale or personal use (i.e., the 
fish are the target of fishing activity), or they are caught 
incidentally in the pursuit of harvesting one or more other stocks and 
could experience overfishing or become overfished without conservation 
and management measures. These reasons are consistent with the stated 
purposes of the MSA, which includes the preparation and implementation 
of FMPs ``which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, the 
optimum yield from each fishery'' (see MSA section 2(b)(4)). OY is 
defined with regard to ``the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, 
particularly with respect to food production and recreational 
opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine 
ecosystems'' (see MSA section 3(33)).
    While the focus of FMPs has been stocks managed for OY, in recent 
years, some FMPs have included other stocks in an effort to incorporate 
ecosystem approaches to management. Congress acknowledged this 
increased attention to ecosystem approaches in the ``Findings'' section 
of the Act (see MSA section 2(a)(11) (acknowledging that a number of 
Councils have demonstrated significant progress in integrating 
ecosystem considerations under existing authorities of the MSA)). In 
addition, MSRA added a new section 303(b)(12) that provides that an FMP 
may ``include management measures in the plan to conserve target and 
non-target species and habitats, considering the variety of ecological 
factors affecting fishery populations.''
    NMFS wants to encourage ecosystem approaches to fishery management 
and believes that clarification of what constitutes the ``fishery'' 
would be helpful. As such, NMFS is proposing guidance pertaining to 
``stocks in the fishery'' and ``ecosystem component (EC) species,'' 
which are described in detail below. The intent of this guidance is to 
articulate approaches taken under existing FMPs and to provide a 
framework for thinking about future FMPs and FMP amendments. The 
Councils would have the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case 
basis, whether changes in their stock classifications under current 
FMPs are needed.

A. Stocks in the Fishery

    As a default, all stocks currently identified in an FMP are 
considered ``stocks in the fishery.'' ``Stocks in the fishery'' would 
include target stocks (i.e., stocks that fishers seek to catch for sale 
or personal use, including ``economic discards'' as defined under MSA 
section 3(9)), non-target stocks that are retained for sale or personal 
use, and non-target stocks that are not retained for sale or personal 
use and that are either determined to be subject to overfishing, 
approaching overfished, or overfished, or could become so, according to 
the best scientific information available, without conservation and 
management measures (see Figure 1 and Sec.  600.310(d)(2) of this 
proposed action). Stocks and stock complexes in the fishery should have 
quantitative SDC, MSY, ABC, ACL, and ACT (collectively called 
``reference points'' throughout this section) and AMs (see Table 1 for 
reference points needed for different types of stocks, and see Sec.  
600.310(b)(2)(iv) of this proposed action), although some stocks in the 
fishery may not require ACLs and AMs if they are covered by a statutory 
exception (see Sec.  600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action). Hereafter, 
in these guidelines, ``stock'' or ``stock(s) and stock complex(es)'' 
refer to ``stocks in the fishery.''

B. Ecosystem Component Species

    Beyond the ``stocks in the fishery,'' a Council may, but is not 
required to, include EC species in an FMP. Such species would include 
non-target fish species that are not considered part of the ``fishery'' 
but rather species with which the fishery may occasionally interact 
(i.e., catch) (see Sec.  600.310(d)(5) of this proposed action). A 
Council may choose to include EC species for purposes of incorporating 
ecosystem approaches to fishery management, data collection, etc. 
Identification of EC species must be done through an FMP amendment 
process (see Sec.  600.310(d) of this proposed action). Such species 
are appropriate to consider when addressing specification of OY and 
conservation and management measures for the fishery (see MSA sections 
3(33) (referring to taking into account the marine ecosystems in OY 
definition), and 3(5) (referring to avoiding irreversible or long-term 
effects on fishery resources and the marine environment and ensuring 
multiplicity of options)). Because EC species are not considered to be 
``in the fishery,'' specification of reference points, ACLs, and AMs 
are not required (see Table 1). However, a Council should consider

[[Page 32530]]

measures for the fishery to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of 
EC species consistent with National Standard 9, and to protect their 
associated role in the ecosystem. NMFS is especially interested in the 
public's comments on the appropriate criteria for classification of EC 
species.

C. Stocks Identified in More Than One FMP

    If a stock is identified as part of more than one ``fishery,'' 
Councils should choose which FMP will be the ``primary FMP'' in which 
management objectives, SDC, and other reference points for the stock 
are established. In most cases, the primary FMP for a stock will be the 
one in which the stock is identified as a target stock. Other FMPs in 
which the stock is identified as part of a fishery should contain 
management measures consistent with the primary FMP for the stock.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN08.000


  Table 1.--Reference Points, Accountability Measures, and Control Rules That Would Be Required or Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Stocks and stock
                                      complexes in a                             Stocks and stock
                                    fishery (excluding     Stocks and stock       complexes in a
                                       those with an        complexes in a        fishery managed     Ecosystem
Reference points,  accountability   approximate 1 year    fishery that have a        under an         component
   measures, and control rules     life cycle and those      life cycle of         international     species \4\
                                       managed under     approximately 1 year   fishery  agreement
                                       international                                    \3\
                                    fishery agreements)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSY \1\..........................  [check].............  [check].............  [check].............          N/A
SDC \1\ (e.g. MFMT \2\, MSST \2\)  [check].............  [check].............  [check].............          N/A
OY \1\...........................  At the stock, stock   At the stock, stock   R...................          N/A
                                    complex, or fishery   complex, or fishery
                                    level.                level.
OFL \2\..........................  R...................  R...................  R...................          N/A
ABC \1\..........................  [check].............  [check].............  R...................          N/A
ACL \1\..........................  [check].............  Only if ``subject to  R...................          N/A
                                                          overfishing''.
AMs \1\..........................  [check].............  Only if ``subject to  R...................          N/A
                                                          overfishing''.
ACT \2\..........................  [check].............  Only if ``subject to  R...................          N/A
                                                          overfishing''.
ABC control rule \2\.............  [check].............  [check].............  R...................          N/A
ACT control rule \2\.............  [check].............  R...................  R...................         N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MSA requirement.
\2\ For consistency with the NS1 Guidelines.
\3\ If the stock is in a U.S. FMP and managed under an international fishery agreement to which the U.S. is
  party.
\4\ Not required by MSA, but an option provided in the NS1 Guidelines.
Legend:
[check] = Yes, this is applicable.
ABC = Acceptable Biological Catch.
ACL = Annual Catch Limit.
AM = Accountability Measures.
MFMT = Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold.
MSST = Minimum Stock Size Threshold.

[[Page 32531]]

 
MSY = Maximum Sustainable Yield.
N/A = Not Applicable.
OFL = Overfishing Limit.
OY = Optimum Yield.
R = Recommended.
SDC = Status Determination Criteria.

D. Stock Complexes

    ``Stock complex'' means a group of stocks in an FMP that are 
sufficiently similar in geographic distribution, life history, and 
vulnerability to the fishery that the impacts of management actions on 
the stocks in the complex is similar (see Sec.  600.310(d)(8) of this 
proposed action). Stock complexes may be comprised of: (1) One or more 
indicator stocks, each of which has SDC and ACLs, and several other 
stocks; (2) several stocks without an indicator stock, with SDC and an 
ACL for the complex as a whole; or (3) one or more indicator stocks, 
each of which has SDC and management objectives, with an ACL for the 
complex as a whole (this situation might be applicable to some salmon 
species).
    For stock complexes, the SDC measured on a stock complex-wide basis 
or for an indicator stock should satisfy the MSA's requirements to 
prevent overfishing and achieve OY for a fishery. Vulnerability of 
stocks to the fishery should be evaluated when determining if: (1) A 
particular stock complex should be established or reorganized; (2) a 
particular stock should be a member of a stock complex; or (3) a stock 
complex should be reorganized. Indicator stocks are stocks selected as 
a representative for a stock complex because they have known 
determinations regarding SDC, and known values for MSY and OY, and can 
form the basis for an MSY and OY for the combinations of stocks in a 
complex. Although it is common for the indicator stock for a stock 
complex to be the most abundant stock, if an indicator stock is less 
vulnerable than other stocks in the complex, the management measures 
should be more conservative to protect the more vulnerable stocks from 
overfishing.

IX. Statutory Exceptions to Requirements for ACLs and AMs and 
Flexibility in Application of NS1 Guidelines

    The MSRA provides two statutory exceptions to the ACL and AM 
requirements under MSA section 303(a)(15) (see MSRA section 104(b) 
(adding two exceptions under a MSA section 303 note); see also Sec.  
600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action). First, MSA section 303(a)(15) 
``shall not apply to a fishery for species that have a life cycle of 
approximately 1 year unless the Secretary has determined the fishery is 
subject to overfishing of that species'' (see MSRA section 104(b)(2)). 
NMFS interprets ``fishery for species'' to be a stock. In addition, 
NMFS interprets ``a life cycle of approximately 1 year'' to mean that 
the average length of time it takes for an individual to produce a 
reproductively active offspring is approximately 1 year, and that the 
individual has only one breeding season in its lifetime. While stocks 
that qualify for the 1-year life cycle exception would not need to have 
ACLs and AMs, such stocks should still have SDC, MSY, OY, ABC, and an 
ABC control rule.
    Second, MSA section 303(a)(15) shall take effect in 2010 and 2011, 
as discussed earlier, ``unless otherwise provided for under an 
international agreement in which the United States participates'' (see 
MSRA section 104(b)(1)). It is not clear to what the text ``unless 
otherwise provided for'' is referring. NMFS has considered several 
possible interpretations of this text in light of other provisions in 
MSRA, including the new international overfishing provisions in MSA 
section 304(i). Prior to MSRA, fisheries managed under international 
agreements in which the United States participates (referred to in this 
action as ``international fisheries'') were subject to MSA section 
304(e) requirements regarding overfishing and rebuilding. However, in 
many of these fisheries, the United States could not unilaterally end 
overfishing or rebuild the stocks. New MSA section 304(i) and other 
MSRA provisions acknowledge the increasing problem of international 
overfishing and the challenges of establishing conservation and 
management measures at the international level. Given Congress's 
recognition of the increasing problem of international overfishing and 
the complexities of international negotiation, NMFS believes that the 
ACL exception should apply to fisheries that are subject to management 
under international agreements in which the United States participates. 
Applying ACLs or AMs only to the U.S. portion of the catch would not 
effect rebuilding or end overfishing, would potentially disadvantage 
U.S. fishermen with respect to foreign fishermen, and could weaken U.S. 
negotiating positions at international fora in which it participates.
    Apart from the statutory exceptions, NMFS recognizes that there are 
limited circumstances that do not fit the standard approaches to 
specification of reference points and management measures set forth in 
the proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines. These include, among 
other things, conservation and management of ESA-listed species, 
harvests from aquaculture operations, and stocks with unusual life 
history characteristics (e.g., Pacific salmon, where the spawning 
potential for a stock is spread over a multi-year period). For 
fisheries where ESA-listed species are incidentally caught, the ESA 
recovery plan would be a significant driver for setting management 
objectives, including ACLs, for the fishery. For aquaculture, once 
managers address status of broodstock taken from the wild (i.e., 
whether overfishing is occurring and/or whether the stock is in need of 
rebuilding), then the levels of harvests from an aquaculture facility 
would not necessarily need to focus on ending or preventing overfishing 
or rebuilding stocks. In these circumstances, Councils may propose 
alternative approaches for satisfying the NS1 requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act other than those set forth in these guidelines. 
Councils should document their rationale for any alternative approaches 
for these limited circumstances in an FMP or FMP amendment, which will 
be reviewed for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    For a fishery in a federal FMP that has a large majority of harvest 
in state or territorial waters, the fishery should have ACL that takes 
into account the overall status of the stock, whether in state or 
federal waters or beyond. However, NMFS recognizes that AMs could only 
be applied to the portion of the fishery under federal jurisdiction. 
Given the jurisdictional issue, one approach proposed is that the 
overall ACL could be divided into a federal portion (federal-ACL) and a 
state portion (state-ACL). AMs would then be triggered when the 
federal-ACL was reached or projected to be reached (see further 
explanation in ``Accountability Measures'' section below).

X. MSRA Requirements for SSCs Related to ACLs

    The MSRA added new requirements for SSCs in the MSA. New section

[[Page 32532]]

302(g)(1)(B) of the MSA states that an SSC for each Regional Fishery 
Management Council ``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.'' New section 302(g)(1)(E) provides that ``The Secretary and 
each Council may establish a peer review process for that Council for 
scientific information used to advise the Council about the 
conservation and management of the fishery.'' In addition, new section 
302(h)(6) provides that each Regional Fishery Management Council is 
required to ``develop annual catch limits for each of its managed 
fisheries that may not exceed the fishing level recommendations of its 
scientific and statistical committee or the peer review process 
established under subsection (g).''
    NMFS recognizes that there is variability in the peer review 
processes and involvement of SSCs amongst the various Councils. In 
addition, the above statutory sections could be subject to different 
interpretations. While MSA section 302(h)(6) refers generally to 
``fishing level recommendations,'' section 302(g)(1)(B) refers to 
recommendations for ABC and MSY, among other things, and section 
302(g)(1)(E) refers generally to ``scientific information.'' Further, 
the text provides for advice from the SSC but also refers to peer 
review processes, leaving open a question about the role and 
relationship between the two. NMFS believes that clear processes for 
implementing these provisions are important in order to ensure that 
Councils get the information needed to establish ACL mechanisms, 
prevent confusion in the decision making process, and ensure general 
consistency in approaches taken.
    For purposes of setting ACLs, a critical piece of scientific advice 
that Councils will need will be the ABC. Taking this into account, and 
considering the new requirements in light of existing SSC, Council, and 
peer review processes, NMFS proposes that the Councils establish a 
process that could be included in their Statement of Organization, 
Practices and Procedures (see Sec.  600.115) which will: Establish an 
ABC control rule, identify the body that will apply the ABC control 
rule (i.e., calculates the ABC), identify the review process that will 
verify the resulting ABC, and confirm that the SSC recommends the ABC 
to the Council. For Secretarial FMPs or FMP amendments, agency 
scientists or a peer review process would provide the scientific advice 
to establish ABC. For fisheries managed under international agreements 
in which the United States participates (referred to in this action as 
``international fisheries''), stock assessments are conducted through 
international scientific bodies that may include U.S. and non-U.S. 
scientists. While the United States promotes fishery conservation and 
management principles as embodied in the MSA (see, e.g., MSA section 
102(c)), it cannot guarantee that international actions will be 
consistent with the Act or NS1 guidelines. Thus, an ABC as defined in 
these guidelines would not be required for international fisheries.
    For stock and stock complexes required to have an ABC, NMFS 
recommends that each Council should establish an ABC control rule (see 
Sec.  600.310(f)(4) of this proposed action) based on scientific advice 
from its SSC. The process of establishing an ABC control rule could 
also involve science advisors or the peer review process established 
under MSA section 302(g)(1)(E). Stock assessment scientists, a plan 
development team, or other designated body would then apply the ABC 
control rule. If a peer review process is established it should 
investigate the technical merits of stock assessments and other 
scientific information used by the SSC. For example, a peer review 
process (e.g., Stock Assessment Review Panel) could validate the ABC 
calculation and then pass their results to the SSC. Ultimately, the SSC 
should make the formal ABC recommendation to the Council. For Council-
managed fisheries, the peer review process is not a substitute for the 
SSC, and should work in conjunction with the SSC.

XI. MSY, OY, and SDC: A Review

    MSY, OY, and SDC are concepts described in the current NS1 
guidelines, and MSRA did not effect changes to the MSA that would 
require changes to these concepts. The following sections provide a 
review of MSY, OY, and SDC and an explanation of the relationship 
between them and the proposed guidance on ACLs and other requirements.
    MSY is the largest long-term average catch or yield that can be 
taken from a stock or stock complex under prevailing ecological and 
environmental conditions and fishery technological characteristics. Any 
estimate of MSY depends on the population dynamics of the stock and the 
characteristics of the fisheries (e.g. gear selectivity). MSY stock 
size (Bmsy) is the long-term average size of the stock or stock 
complex, measured in terms of spawning biomass, or other appropriate 
measure of the stock's reproductive potential, that would be achieved 
by fishing at Fmsy. OY is the amount of fish that will provide the 
greatest overall benefit to the Nation, while preventing overfishing, 
particularly with respect to food production and recreational 
opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine 
ecosystems. OY is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, 
as reduced by relevant economic, social or ecological factors. In the 
case of an overfished fishery, OY provides for rebuilding to a level 
consistent with producing MSY in such a fishery. In NS1, use of the 
phrase, ``achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each 
fishery'' means producing, from each stock, stock complex or fishery a 
long-term series of catches such that the average catch is equal to OY, 
overfishing is prevented, the long term average biomass is near or 
above Bmsy, and overfished stocks are rebuilt in as short a time as 
possible as specified in MSA section 304(e)(4). OY might be established 
at the stock or stock complex level, or for a fishery comprised of 
stocks, many of which have their own ACL and ACT (e.g., groundfish of 
the Gulf of Alaska and groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands).
    Section 3(34) of the MSA states that ``overfishing'' and 
``overfished'' mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that 
jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum 
sustainable yield on a continuing basis. To reduce confusion and 
conform to usage of those terms in other fisheries worldwide, in the 
current NS1 guidelines, NMFS interpreted these terms so that 
``overfished'' pertains to the biomass of the stock or stock complex, 
and ``overfishing'' pertains to a rate or level of removal of fish from 
the stock or stock complex. The current NS1 guidelines also provide for 
SDC, which are quantifiable factors for determining whether a stock or 
stock complex is overfished or if overfishing is occurring. An 
overfished definition consists of a measure of stock abundance called 
the minimum stock size threshold (MSST), below which a stock's or stock 
complex's capacity to produce MSY on a continuing basis is jeopardized. 
Overfishing of a stock or stock complex occurs whenever a stock or 
stock complex is subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality, 
called the

[[Page 32533]]

maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), above which the stock's or 
stock complex's capacity to produce MSY on a continuing basis is 
jeopardized or annual catch exceeds a stock's or stock complex's OFL. 
MSRA made no changes to the MSA that would necessitate different 
interpretations of these terms or different approaches to these 
concepts.

XII. Description of the Relationship of OFL to MSY and ACT to OY

    National Standard 1 establishes the relationship between 
conservation and management measures, preventing overfishing, and 
achieving OY from each stock, stock complex or fishery. The following 
sections describe in detail NMFS' proposed guidance on ACLs and other 
new requirements. Among other things, the proposed guidance introduces 
new terms--overfishing limit (OFL) and annual catch target (ACT)--which 
are not set forth in the MSA but which NMFS believes would be helpful 
to implement the statutory requirements. As an overview, OFL is an 
annual amount of catch that corresponds to the estimate of MFMT applied 
to a stock or complex's abundance; MSY is the long-term average of such 
catches. The current NS1 guidelines define overfishing with regard to 
MFMT, which is a rate of fishing. The use of OFL would provide another 
method for measuring overfishing by allowing the comparison of a stock 
or stock complexes' annual catch to its OFL; if catch exceeds OFL, 
overfishing is occurring. It is recommended that ABC would be set below 
OFL to take into account the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of 
OFL.
    ACL would be the limit that triggers AMs, and ACT would be the 
management target for the fishery. Management measures for a fishery 
should, on an annual basis, achieve the ACT and prevent the ACL from 
being exceeded. The long-term objective is to achieve OY through annual 
achievement of ACT.

XIII. Definition Framework for OFL, ABC, ACL, and ACT

    The MSRA does not define ACLs, AMs, and ABC, and there are many 
different ways in which these terms can be defined. The voluminous 
comments that NMFS received during scoping reflects the wide range of 
possible interpretations and approaches. For example, some commenters 
felt that ACL should be considered a target catch level and others felt 
it should be a limit that should not be approached or reached. Many 
commenters suggested, in general, that a buffer be implemented between 
management targets and limits in order to prevent overfishing and 
account for uncertainty. Over the past year, NMFS spent considerable 
time reviewing different interpretations of the ACL requirement in 
light of MSA sections 303(a)(15), 302(h)(6), and 302(g) and other 
sections of the MSA, and taking into consideration the current NS1 
guidelines, previously proposed changes to those guidelines, existing 
FMPs and FMP amendments, scientific and management roles in the 
decision making process, and public comment. Based on this review, NMFS 
proposes the following definitions for ACL, AM, and ABC, and also for 
ACT and OFL:
    1. Overfishing limit (OFL) means ``the annual amount of catch that 
corresponds to the estimate of MFMT applied to a stock or stock 
complex's abundance and is expressed in terms of numbers or weight of 
fish.'' See Sec.  600.310(e)(2)(i)(D) of this proposed action.
    2. Acceptable biological catch (ABC) means ``a level of a stock or 
stock complex's annual catch that accounts for the scientific 
uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and should be specified based on the 
ABC control rule.'' See Sec.  600.310 (f)(2)(ii) of this proposed 
action.
    3. Annual catch limit (ACL) means ``the level of annual catch of a 
stock or stock complex that serves as the basis for invoking 
accountability measures.'' See Sec.  600.310(f)(2)(iv) of this proposed 
action.
    4. Annual catch target (ACT) means ``an amount of annual catch of a 
stock or stock complex that is the management target of the fishery. A 
stock or stock complex's ACT should usually be less than its ACL and 
results from the application of the ACT control rule. If sector-ACLs 
have been established, each one should have a corresponding sector-
ACT.'' See Sec. Sec.  600.310(f)(2)(v) and (f)(6) of this proposed 
action.
    5. Accountability measures (AMs) means ``management controls that 
prevent ACLs or sector-ACLs from being exceeded (inseason AMs), where 
possible, and correct or mitigate overages if they occur.'' See Sec.  
600.310(g) of this proposed action.
    As proposed in this action, the relationship between the above 
terms would be OFL>=ABC>=ACL>=ACT (see Figure 2). Because a primary 
goal of the MSA, and management responsibility of NMFS and the 
Councils, is to end and prevent overfishing, rather than account for it 
after it occurs, NMFS believes that a good approach to management is to 
have OFL>ABC and ACL>ACT. The ABC is lower than the OFL to address 
scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL, and ACT is lower than 
the ACL to address uncertainty in the accounting for catch and in the 
degree to which management measures can control catch to the target 
level.
    OFL is an annual amount of catch that corresponds to the estimate 
of MFMT applied to a stock or complex's abundance, and MSY is the long-
term average of such catches. NMFS proposes that OFL be the upper bound 
of ABC, but that ABC should usually be reduced from the OFL to account 
for scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. For overfished 
stocks, ABC must also be set to reflect the annual catch that is 
consistent with the rebuilding plan for that stock. Therefore, if a 
stock is being managed under a rebuilding program, its ABC should be 
lower during some or all stages of rebuilding than when the stock is 
rebuilt. The ABC will be set on the basis of the ABC control rule.
    The proposed guidelines would have the Councils set the ACL as a 
level of catch specified for a stock or stock complex each year that 
cannot exceed its ABC. If a stock or stock complex's catch exceeds its 
ACL, AMs will be invoked as specified in the FMP. The ACL may typically 
be equal to the ABC and setting the ACL provides an opportunity to 
divide the total ACL into sector-specific ACLs. As noted above, the 
purpose of the ACT is to address management uncertainty. The ACT would 
be the target catch of a stock or stock complex that a fishery is 
managed to attain and should generally be less than the stock or stock 
complex's ACL. ``Catch'' includes fish that are retained for any 
purpose, as well as mortality of fish that are discarded (see Sec.  
600.310(f)(2)(i) of this proposed action). Therefore, for fisheries 
where bycatch estimates are not available in a timely enough manner to 
manage annual catch, targets may be specified for landings, so long as 
an estimate of bycatch is accounted for such that total of landings and 
bycatch will not exceed the stock's or stock complex's ACL. For a stock 
with sufficient inseason data monitoring, the fishery for that stock 
would be closed in time to prevent the ACL from being exceeded.
    NMFS notes that when it published an initial notice about ACLs, ACT 
was not a parameter used when exploring the concept of how to make ACLs 
and AMs operational. At that time, NMFS suggested an initial approach 
of OFL>ABC>=ACL with ACL as the target catch that management measures 
should try to attain. Under that approach, if catch of a stock reached 
the OFL, its

[[Page 32534]]

fishery would be closed. During the scoping period, NMFS received some 
public comments expressing concern about the use of an ACL as a 
management target as opposed to a ``limit.'' Also, the framework 
contained in this proposed rule provides for better separation between 
scientific uncertainty in estimating OFL (i.e., a recommendation that 
ABC be lower than OFL), and management uncertainty and OY factors 
indicating that an ACT be lower than the ACL.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JN08.001

XIV. Control Rules

    Control rules are harvest strategies that specify how a stock's or 
stock complex's catch will be modified in response to one or more 
factors, particularly estimated stock size. The current NS1 guidelines 
include MSY control rules which are ``limit'' control rules and OY 
control rules which are ``target'' control rules. For any stock, the 
limit control rule results in a higher amount than the target control 
rule for a given stock abundance. Because of the new MSA requirement 
for annual catch limits to end and prevent overfishing for stocks in a 
fishery, NMFS proposes that MSY control rules be replaced by ABC 
control rules and become the new limit control rule, and OY control 
rules be replaced by ACT control rules and become the new target 
control rule. This would align the control rules more directly with the 
new requirement to specify an ABC and an ACL for stocks in the fishery 
(see earlier discussion in the preamble for the relationship between 
OFL and MSY, and between ACT and OY).
    ABC and ACT control rules should be developed for each stock when 
possible. For stock complexes, ABC and ACT control rules should be 
developed for each indicator stock or for the stock complex as a whole. 
ACTs should be set with the intention that they typically will be 
achieved. A stock's or stock complex's ACT control rule should result 
in lower target catches than the ABC control rule would, for all levels 
of a stock's or stock complex's abundance.
    In the proposed revisions to NS1 guidelines, an ABC control rule is 
a specified approach to setting the ABC for a stock or stock complex as 
a function of the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. An ACT 
control rule is an approach to setting the ACT for each stock and stock 
complex such that the risk of exceeding ACL due to management 
uncertainty (ability to control catch and variability in catch data) is 
an acceptably low level. Both control rules are designed to reduce the 
risk that overfishing will occur.
    For rebuilding stocks, the ABC, ACL, and ACT should be set at lower 
levels than for rebuilt stocks because two

[[Page 32535]]

objectives are combined. First, overfishing should not occur; and 
second, rebuilding at a rate commensurate with the stock's rebuilding 
plan should occur. This means that, for a rebuilding stock, a lower 
target fishing mortality rate may be needed to accomplish rebuilding, 
in addition to avoiding overfishing (i.e., ACL and ACT are lower than 
they would be if the stock was rebuilt).

XV. Sector ACLs, ACTs, and AMs

    A Council may decide, but is not required, to divide the ACL into 
sector-ACLs. ``Sector'' for purposes of the NS1 guidelines means a 
distinct user group to which separate management strategies and catch 
quotas apply. Examples of sectors could include the commercial sector, 
recreational sector, or various gear groups within a fishery. It is up 
to each Council to decide how to designate sectors, if any. If sector-
ACLs are established, sector-AMs and sector-ACTs must be developed for 
each sector-ACL. In cases where states cooperatively manage a stock, it 
is possible that a sector ACL could be further subdivided in order to 
establish ``subsector'' ACLs and ACTs for various states to align with 
current management of catch limits or quotas in the state fisheries. 
The system of ACLs and AMs must be effective and equitable and protect 
the stock as a whole from overfishing. The sum of a stock's sector-ACLs 
must not exceed the stock's ACL. If sector-ACLs and sector-AMs are 
established, additional AMs at the stock level would also be 
appropriate. A sector must be closed inseason if timely catch data 
indicates its ACL has been reached. If a sector does not have timely 
inseason fisheries data, or has a history of annual overages, then a 
Council should establish a large enough difference between a sector's 
ACT and ACL to improve the probability that the sector-ACL and the 
stock's ACL are not exceeded.

XVI. Accountability Measures

    AMs are management controls implemented for stocks such that 
exceeding the ACL or sector-ACL is prevented, where possible, and 
corrected or mitigated if it occurs (see Sec.  600.310(g) of this 
proposed action). AMs include: (1) Those that are applied inseason and 
designed to prevent the ACL from being reached; (2) measures applied 
after the fishing year that are designed to address the operational 
issue that caused the ACL overage, ensuring it does not happen in 
subsequent fishing years, and, as necessary, address any biological 
harm to the stock; and (3) those based on multi-year average data which 
are still reviewed and applied annually (see discussion below). AMs 
should address and minimize both the frequency of overages and the 
magnitude of an overage. AMs should be designed so that if an ACL is 
exceeded, specific adjustments are effective in the next fishing year, 
or as soon as possible, with explanation of why more timely adjustment 
is not possible.
    If timely inseason fishery catch data are available for a stock, 
Councils should ensure their FMPs contain inseason closure authority as 
an AM to prevent a stock's ACL from being exceeded. Where fishery catch 
data are not timely enough to implement inseason AMs, the ACT should be 
adjusted downward from the ACL to account for the increased management 
uncertainty and the delayed ability to implement AMs.
    A ``multiyear plan'' as referenced in section 303(a)(15) of the MSA 
is a plan that establishes harvest specifications or harvest guidelines 
for each year of a time period greater than one year. Because 
``multiyear plans'' establish ACLs and ACTs for more than one year at a 
time, they should include AMs that provide if an ACL is exceeded in one 
year, then a subsequent year's harvest specification (including ACLs 
and ACTs) could be revised (see Sec.  600.310(f)(5)(i) of this proposed 
action).
    Some fisheries have highly variable annual catches and lack 
reliable inseason or annual data on which to base AMs. If there are 
insufficient data upon which to compare catch to ACL, either inseason 
or on an annual basis, a Council could base AMs on comparison of 
average catch to average ACL over a three-year moving average period 
or, if supported by analysis, some other appropriate multi-year period 
(see Sec.  600.310(g)(4) of this proposed action). As a performance 
standard, if the average catch exceeds the average ACL more than once 
in the last four years, then the ACL, ACT and AM system should be re-
evaluated to improve its performance. The initial ACL and management 
measures should incorporate information from previous years so that AMs 
based on average ACLs can be applied from the first year.
    If a stock is in a rebuilding plan and its ACL is exceeded, the AMs 
should include overage adjustments that reduce the ACL in the next 
fishing year by the full amount of the overage, unless the best 
scientific information available shows that a reduced overage 
adjustment is sufficent, or no adjustment is needed to mitigate the 
effects of the overage. This AM is important to increase the likelihood 
that the stock will continue to rebuild.
    As discussed earlier, stocks and stock complexes in federal FMPs 
that have a large majority of harvest in state or territorial waters 
should have an ACL that takes into consideration the overall status of 
the stock. However, federal management would be limited to that portion 
of the fishery under federal jurisdiction. Options for AMs that a 
Council could consider for stocks or stock complexes caught mostly in 
state or territorial waters would include, but are not limited to: (1) 
Close the EEZ when the federal portion of the ACL is reached, or (2) 
close the EEZ when the overall stock or stock complex's ACL is reached. 
The AMs should ensure that federal managers are doing as much as 
possible to end and prevent overfishing. When stocks are co-managed by 
federal, state, tribal, and/or territorial fishery managers, the goal 
should be to develop collaborative conservation and management 
strategies, and scientific capacity to support such strategies, to 
prevent overfishing of shared stocks and ensure their sustainability.

XVII. Summary of Items To Include in FMPs

    This section provides a summary of items that Councils should 
include in their FMPs and FMP amendments in order to address ACL, AM, 
and other aspects of the proposed NS1 guidelines. Some items are 
specific to new MSRA provisions. Others were required prior to MSRA, 
but are included here so as to be comprehensive. Councils may review 
their FMPs to decide if all stocks are ``in the fishery'' or whether 
some fit the category of ``ecosystem component species'' and amend 
their FMP as appropriate. If they do not establish EC species through 
an FMP amendment, then all stocks in an FMP are presumed to be ``in the 
fishery.'' For all stocks and stock complexes that are in the fishery, 
the Councils should evaluate and describe the following items in their 
FMPs and amend the FMPs, if necessary, to align their management 
objectives to end or prevent overfishing (see Sec.  600.310(c) of this 
proposed action): (1) MSY and SDC, (2) OY at the stock, stock complex 
or fishery level, (3) ABC control rule, (4) ACLs and mechanisms for 
setting ACLs and possible sector-specific ACLs in relationship to the 
ABC, (5) ACT control rule, (6) AMs and AM mechanisms, and (7) stocks 
and stock complexes that have statutory exceptions from ACLs or fall 
under limited circumstances which require different approaches to meet 
the ACL requirements (e.g., ESA-listed

[[Page 32536]]

stocks and harvests from aquaculture facilities).
    The Councils should evaluate the extent to which their FMPs comply 
with requirements to define MSY and OY for stocks in the fishery, and 
the reasons that OY is reduced from MSY (see Sec.  600.310(e)(3)(iv) of 
this proposed action). An overall objective of management of federal 
fisheries under the MSA is to conserve fishery resources so as to 
prevent overfishing and achieve OY (see sections 2(a)(6) and 2(b)(4) of 
the MSA). OY is based on MSY for a fishery, as reduced for economic, 
social, or ecological reasons (see section 3(33)(B) of the MSA). 
Therefore, it is important that all FMPs have MSY and OY prescribed 
correctly.
    FMPs should contain a description of fisheries data for the stocks, 
stock complexes, and ecosystem component species. The sources of 
fishing mortality, such as commercial catch (both landed and 
discarded), recreational catch, and bycatch in other fisheries should 
be listed in the FMP for each fishery, along with a description of the 
data collection and estimation methods used to quantify total catch 
mortality in each fishery. The description of the data collection 
methods used to monitor the fishery should include information on the 
frequency that those data are collected and updated and the scope of 
sampling coverage for the fishery. In addition, the FMP should describe 
how those data are used to determine the relationship between total 
catch at a given point in time and the ACL for a stock or stock 
complex.
    FMPs should explain issues related to shared jurisdiction of stocks 
(if any), and the degree to which ACLs and AMs established by the 
Councils will ensure that overfishing does not occur on the stock as a 
whole.
    NMFS is aware that existing FMPs may use terms that are similar to, 
associated with, or may be equivalent to ABC, ACL, ACT, and AM in many 
fisheries for which annual specifications are set for different stocks 
or stock complexes. NMFS' preference is that, as Councils revise their 
FMPs, they use the same terms as set forth in the NS1 guidelines as 
finalized. However, given the longstanding use of terms under certain 
FMPs, if changing terminology could cause confusion, Councils could opt 
to retain existing terminology and explain in a proposed rule how the 
terminology and approaches in the FMPs are consistent with those set 
forth in the NS1 guidelines.
    Councils should amend their FMPs to provide explicit narrative of 
how the FMP objectives and annual management measures will work with 
ACLs and AMs. All stocks and stock complexes should have an annual or 
multiyear specification process for stocks managed in a fishery. An 
annual or multiyear specification process for setting or adjusting ACLs 
provides a timely, consistent method that the public and stakeholders 
can understand, and that provides an opportunity for public comment. 
Such a process could also provide a method for assigning an ACL, ACT, 
and AM to a ``stock having a life cycle of approximately one year'' 
that is undergoing overfishing.

XVIII. Change in Timetable When Establishing a Rebuilding Plan

    The MSA provides that the Secretary shall annually identify stocks 
and stock complexes that are overfished or approaching a condition of 
being overfished; notify the appropriate Council at any time when a 
stock or stock complex is determined to be overfished; and notify the 
appropriate Council when adequate progress is not being made under 
existing FMPs, FMP amendments, or regulations (see MSA sections 
304(e)(1), (2), and (7)). MSRA did not change these identification and 
notification provisions but revised the timing of Council actions. 
Currently, the Councils have 1 year to prepare an FMP, an FMP 
amendment, or proposed regulations (see MSA sections 304(e)(3) and 304 
note (Effective Date for Subsection (c)). Beginning July 12, 2009, the 
Councils have 2 years from the date of an identification or 
notification to prepare and implement an FMP, an FMP amendment, or 
proposed regulations ``to end overfishing immediately in the fishery 
and to rebuild affected stocks * * * or to prevent overfishing from 
occurring in the fishery whenever such fishery is identified as 
approaching an overfished condition'' (see MSA section 304(e)(3), as 
revised by MSRA section 104(c)). To facilitate timely implementation of 
actions under revised section 304(e)(3), the Councils should submit an 
FMP, an FMP amendment, or proposed regulations within 15 months of an 
identification or notification under this section. This will provide 
the Secretary with 9 months to implement the measures, if approved (see 
Sec.  600.310(j)(2)(ii) of this proposed action).
    While MSA section 304(e)(3) provides for two years for a Council to 
prepare and implement an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulations, 
as discussed earlier, MSA section 303(a)(15) has a separate requirement 
for FMPs and ACLs that is effective in fishing year 2010 for fisheries 
determined to be subject to overfishing and in fishing year 2011 for 
all other fisheries. Thus, as of 2010 and beyond, for a stock and stock 
complex determined to be overfished and experiencing overfishing, a 
Council needs to take measures consistent with MSA section 303(a)(15) 
that address overfishing while the rebuilding plan is under 
development.

XIX. Establishing the Length of Time for a Rebuilding Plan

    NMFS proposes clarifying guidance for calculating the target time 
to rebuild (T<INF>target</INF>) in rebuilding plans for stocks (see 
Sec.  600.310(j)(3)(i)(E) of this proposed action), based on 
experiences with FMPs since the last NS1 guideline revisions. The 
purpose of this clarification is to emphasize that the rebuilding time 
must be ``as short as possible,'' taking several factors into account 
(see MSA section 304(e)(4)(A)(i)). Establishing the T<INF>target</INF> 
should be based on the minimum time for rebuilding a stock 
(T<INF>min</INF>), and factors described in Sec.  600.310(j)(3) of this 
proposed action with priority given to rebuilding in as short a time as 
possible. T<INF>target</INF> shall not exceed the maximum time 
allowable for rebuilding (T<INF>max</INF>) and should generally be less 
than T<INF>max</INF>.

XX. Action When a Stock's Rebuilding Plan Ends and the Stock Is Not 
Rebuilt

    Many rebuilding plans for overfished stocks under section 304(e) of 
the MSA were initiated in 1998, or later, and some of those plans are 
reaching the end of their rebuilding periods such that a stock is no 
longer overfished, but not rebuilt. NMFS does not have explicit 
guidance in the NS1 guidelines to describe what a Council should do 
under such circumstances. Therefore, NMFS proposes that if a stock 
reaches the end of its rebuilding plan period and it is not yet 
determined to be rebuilt, then the rebuilding F should not be increased 
until the stock has been demonstrated to be rebuilt (see Sec.  
600.310(j)(3)(ii) of this proposed action). If the rebuilding plan was 
based on a T<INF>target</INF> that was less than T<INF>max</INF>, and 
the stock is not rebuilt by T<INF>target</INF>, rebuilding measures 
should be revised if necessary, such that the stock will be rebuilt by 
T<INF>max</INF>. If the stock has not rebuilt by T<INF>max</INF>, and 
the rebuilding F is greater than 75 percent of MFMT, then the 
rebuilding F should be reduced to no more than 75 percent of MFMT until 
the stock has been demonstrated to be rebuilt.

[[Page 32537]]

XXI. Changes to the Definitions of Some Components of MSY

    NMFS is proposing changes to the definitions of some components of 
MSY. The purposes of these changes are to improve some portions of the 
MSY related definitions and to further clarify how MSY is estimated. 
The definition of MSY in the NS1 guidelines would remain the same for 
the most part but the phrase ``and fishery technological 
characteristics (e.g., gear selectivity) and the distribution of catch 
among fleets'' would be added to the end of the definition (see Sec.  
600.310(e)(1)(i)(A) of this proposed action). The purpose of this 
change is to acknowledge that MSY also depends upon gear selectivity 
(age at entry) and the catch performance of the fishery, which can 
depend on the relative proportion of catch between different fleets 
with differing fishing characteristics. The definition of MSY stock 
size would be changed in two places. Currently, the guidelines state 
that ``MSY stock size means the long-term average size of the stock or 
stock complex, measured in terms of spawning biomass or other 
appropriate units that would be achieved under a MSY control rule in 
which the fishing mortality rate is constant.'' In the proposed 
guidelines (see Sec.  600.310(e)(1)(i)(C) of the proposed action), NMFS 
clarifies that ``other appropriate units'' means an ``appropriate 
measure of the stock's reproductive potential.'' NMFS also replaces the 
statement that ``the fishing mortality rate is constant'' with 
``Fmsy.'' NMFS also added a definition for MSY fishing mortality rate 
(Fmsy) (see Sec.  600.310(e)(1)(i)(B) of the proposed action), which 
was lacking in the current guidelines. MSY fishing mortality ``is the 
fishing mortality rate that, if applied over the long term, would 
result in MSY.''

XXII. Social, Economic and Ecological Factors as They Relate to OY

    NMFS proposes additional guidance to better describe social and 
ecological factors, and minor revisions to the economic factors as they 
relate to setting OY for a stock (see Sec.  600.310(e)(3)(iv) of this 
proposed action). The revisions to the social factors describe fishery-
related indicators and non-fishery related indicators that should be 
considered when OY needs to be reduced for a stock or stock complex.

XXIII. Scope of This Proposed Action

    NMFS received voluminous comments during its scoping comment period 
for ACLs and AMs, including proposals to strengthen guidance on 
ecosystem considerations when setting ACLs and AMs. While NMFS has 
carefully considered all comments received, it will not be able to 
include all proposed NS1 revisions in this action. These proposed 
revisions to the NS1 guidelines will address primarily the need to have 
ACL and AM mechanisms and ACLs and AMs in place such that ACLs end 
overfishing in 2010, for stocks undergoing overfishing, and prevent 
overfishing for all other stocks beginning in 2011.
    NMFS intends to withdraw most of the proposed revisions to the NS1 
guidelines that were published in 2005 in a separate withdrawal of a 
proposed rule action. A few of the topics from the 2005 rule are 
considered in this action, such as: (1) Establishing the length of time 
for a rebuilding plan; (2) action to take when a stock is not 
determined to be rebuilt at the end of its rebuilding plan; and (3) the 
definition of several components of MSY. Other proposed revisions 
considered in the 2005 proposed NS1 guidelines and suggested during the 
comment period for this action will be considered by NMFS for possible 
inclusion in subsequent revisions to the NS1 guidelines.

XXIV. Republishing Codified Text in Its Entirety

    For clarity and convenience of the reader, this proposed rule would 
revise Sec.  600.310 in its entirety. The following describes the 
changes to Sec.  600.310 that are being proposed.
    In the proposed revisions to Sec.  600.310, paragraph (b)--General, 
would be revised to contain a general outline of information provided 
by the NS1 guidelines. Current paragraph (b) only contains a brief 
summary of the relationship between MSY and OY.

Current paragraph (c)--MSY is revised and redesignated paragraph 
(e)(1).

    Current paragraph (d)(1)--Definitions, is revised and redesignated 
paragraph (e)(2)(i).
    Current paragraph (d)(2)--Specification of status determination 
criteria, is revised and redesignated paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
    Current paragraph (d)(3)--Relationship of status determination 
criteria to other national standards is revised, redesignated paragraph 
(l) and renamed, ``Relationship of National Standard 1 to other 
national standards.''
    Current paragraph (d)(6)--Exceptions, is revised, redesignated 
paragraph (m), and renamed, ``Exceptions to requirements to prevent 
overfishing.''
    Current paragraph (e)--Ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished 
stocks, is revised and redesignated paragraph (j)--Council actions to 
address overfishing and rebuilding for stocks and stock complexes in 
the fishery.
    Current paragraph (f)--OY is redesignated paragraph (e)(3).
    Revised paragraphs with much different content include: Paragraph 
(c)--Summary of Items to Include in FMPs Related to NS1, paragraph 
(d)--Classifying stocks in an FMP, and paragraph (f)--Acceptable 
Biological Catch, Annual Catch Limits, and Annual Catch Targets.
    New paragraphs that contain new content not covered in the current 
NS1 guidelines include: (g) Accountability measures, (h) Establishing 
ACL and AM mechanisms in FMPs, (i) Fisheries data, and (k) 
International overfishing.

XXV. Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further 
consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. NOAA has prepared a regulatory 
impact review of this rulemaking, which is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/catchlimits.htm. This analysis discusses 
various policy options that NOAA considered in preparation of this 
proposed rule, given NOAA's interpretation of the statutory terms in 
the MSRA, such as the appropriate meaning of the word ``limit'' in 
``Annual Catch Limit,'' and NOAA's belief that it has become necessary 
for Councils to consider separately the uncertainties in fishery 
management and the scientific uncertainties in stock evaluation in 
order to effectively set fishery management policies and ensure 
fulfillment of the goals to end overfishing and rebuild overfished 
stocks.
    NOAA invites the public to comment on this proposal, the supporting 
analysis, and its underlying interpretation of the analytical 
requirements of the MSRA. In particular, NOAA seeks comment on: The 
appropriate interplay of the OFL, ABC, ACL and ACT; whether the 
Council's experience with MSY and OY would readily translate into these 
new concepts; whether the ACT and ACT control rules, as proposed, would 
be effective tools in managing fisheries at risk; the degree to which 
Councils should have the flexibility to specify stringent AMs to 
prevent the ACL from

[[Page 32538]]

being exceeded in lieu of setting an ACT and ACT control rules; and the 
expected burden of these analytical requirements, both in terms of time 
and resources.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that these proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines, if 
adopted, would not have any significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, as follows:

    I certify that the attached proposed action issued under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (MSA) will not have any significant economic impacts 
on a substantial number of small entities, as defined under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed action would revise the 
National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310.
    The proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines provide guidance on 
how to address new overfishing and rebuilding and related 
requirements under MSA sections 303(a)(15), 304(e), and other 
sections. Pursuant to section 301(b) of the Act, the NS guidelines 
do not have the force and effect of law. Regional Fishery Management 
Councils (Councils) and the Secretary of Commerce would use the NS1 
guidelines when developing or amending FMPs to implement annual 
catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) and to take 
necessary actions to rebuild overfished fisheries. ACL and AM 
requirements under section 303(a)(15) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
are effective in fishing year 2010, for stocks undergoing 
overfishing and in fishing year 2011, for all other fisheries. NMFS 
believes that revisions to the NS1 guidelines will assist the 
Councils and the Secretary in addressing new MSA requirements, 
ensure greater consistency in approaches to ending overfishing and 
rebuilding stocks, increase efficiency in reviewing actions and 
tracking annual management performance, and improve communication 
between NMFS and the Councils.
    Because the NS1 guidelines are general guidance and there is 
considerable diversity in the different federally-managed fisheries, 
potential economic impacts of the guidelines are highly speculative. 
As the Councils and/or the Secretary apply these guidelines to 
specific fisheries, they will develop FMPs, FMP amendments, or other 
regulatory actions that will be accompanied by environmental, 
economic, and social analyses prepared pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other 
statutes.
    NMFS has identified a total of 59,823 commercial vessel permit 
holders and 18,486 headboat and charter boat vessel permits. A total 
of 26,074 recreational permits exist for Atlantic highly migratory 
species (HMS). Operator permits are estimated at 6,636 and dealer 
permits were estimated at 7,550. However, it is important to note 
that in most cases each vessel possesses permits for several 
fisheries (multiple vessel permits). As such, the total number of 
vessel permits (commercial, headboat and charter boat, and HMS 
recreational) grossly overestimate the actual number of vessels that 
are operating in these fisheries. All vessels included in the total 
vessel permits for each fishery are considered to be small entities 
for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis. As a 
result, NMFS does not believe that these proposed revisions to the 
NS1 guidelines would place a substantial number of small entities at 
a disadvantage as compared to large entities or that it would reduce 
profit significantly. The NS1 guidelines would provide general 
guidance on ending and preventing overfishing and rebuilding 
fisheries, leaving considerable discretion to the Councils and the 
Secretary to consider alternative ways to accomplish these goals 
consistent with the NS, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, and other applicable law. Therefore, an IRFA has not been 
prepared for this action.
    These proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines do not contain 
any new recordkeeping or reporting requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. When the Councils and the Secretary develop 
FMPs, FMP amendments, or other regulatory actions per the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and NS1 guidelines, such actions may include new 
proposed collection-of-information requirements. In the event that 
new collection-of-information requirements are proposed, a specific 
analysis regarding the public's reporting burden would accompany 
such action. NMFS is not aware of any other relevant federal rules 
that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 3, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. Section 600.310 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  600.310  National Standard 1--Optimum Yield.

    (a) Standard 1. Conservation and management measures shall prevent 
overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield 
(OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.
    (b) General. (1) The guidelines set forth in this section describe 
fishery management approaches to meet the objectives of National 
Standard 1 (NS1), and include guidance on:
    (i) Specifying maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and OY;
    (ii) Specifying status determination criteria (SDC) so that 
overfishing and overfished determinations can be made for stocks and 
stock complexes that are part of a fishery;
    (iii) Preventing overfishing and achieving OY using a system of 
limits and targets, incorporation of scientific and management 
uncertainty in control rules, and adaptive management using annual 
catch limits (ACL) and measures to ensure accountability (AM); and
    (iv) Rebuilding stocks and stock complexes.
    (2) Overview of Magnuson-Stevens Act concepts and provisions 
related to NS1--(i) MSY. The Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes MSY as 
the basis for fishery management and requires that: The fishing 
mortality rate does not jeopardize the capacity of a stock or stock 
complex to produce MSY; the abundance of an overfished stock or stock 
complex be rebuilt to a level that is capable of producing MSY; and OY 
not exceed MSY.
    (ii) OY. The determination of OY is a decisional mechanism for 
resolving the Magnuson-Stevens Act's conservation and management 
objectives, achieving a fishery management plan's (FMP) objectives, and 
balancing the various interests that comprise the greatest overall 
benefits to the Nation. OY is based on MSY as reduced under paragraphs 
(e)(3)(iii) and (iv) of this section. The most important limitation on 
the specification of OY is that the choice of OY and the conservation 
and management measures proposed to achieve it must prevent 
overfishing.
    (iii) ACLs and AMs. Any FMP which is prepared by any Council shall 
establish a mechanism for specifying ACLs in the FMP (including a 
multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at 
a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including 
measures to ensure accountability (Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
303(a)(15)). Subject to certain exceptions and circumstances described 
in paragraph (h) of this section, this requirement takes effect in 
fishing year 2010, for fisheries determined subject to overfishing, and 
in fishing year 2011 for all other fisheries (Magnuson-Stevens Act 
section 303 note). ``Council'' includes the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate (see Sec.  
600.305(c)(11)).
    (iv) Reference points. SDC, MSY, acceptable biological catch (ABC), 
ACL, and annual catch target (ACT), which are described further in 
paragraphs (e)

[[Page 32539]]

and (f) of this section, are collectively referred to as ``reference 
points.''
    (v) Scientific advice. The Magnuson-Stevens Act has requirements 
regarding scientific and statistical committees (SSC) of the Regional 
Fishery Management Councils, including but not limited to, the 
following provisions:
    (A) Each Regional Fishery Management Council shall establish an SSC 
as described in section 302(g)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    (B) Each SSC shall provide its Regional Fishery Management Council 
recommendations for ABC as well as other scientific advice, as 
described in Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(B). The SSC may 
specify the type of information that should be included in the Stock 
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report (see Sec.  600.315).
    (C) The Secretary and each Regional Fishery Management Council may 
establish a peer review process for that Regional Fishery Management 
Council for scientific information used to advise the Regional Fishery 
Management Council about the conservation and management of the fishery 
(see Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(E)). If a peer review 
process is established, it should investigate the technical merits of 
stock assessments and other scientific information used by the SSC. The 
peer review process is not a substitute for the SSC and should work in 
conjunction with the SSC.
    (D) Each Regional Fishery Management Council shall develop ACLs for 
each of its managed fisheries that may not exceed the fishing level 
recommendations of its SSC or peer review process (Magnuson-Stevens Act 
section 302(h)(6)).
    (3) Approach for setting limits and targets for consistency with 
NS1. In general, when specifying limits and targets intended to avoid 
overfishing and achieve sustainable fisheries, Councils should take an 
approach that considers uncertainty in scientific information and 
management control of the fishery. These guidelines identify limit and 
target reference points which should be set lower as uncertainty 
increases such that there is a low risk that limits are exceeded as 
described in paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(6) of this section.
    (c) Summary of items to include in FMPs related to NS1. This 
section provides a summary of items that Councils should include in 
their FMPs and FMP amendments in order to address ACL, AM, and other 
aspects of the NS1 guidelines. As described in further detail in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section, Councils may review 
their FMPs to decide if all stocks are ``in the fishery'' or whether 
some fit the category of ``ecosystem component species'' and amend 
their FMPs as appropriate. If they do not establish ecosystem component 
species through an FMP amendment, then all stocks in an FMP are 
presumed to be ``in the fishery.'' Councils should also describe 
fisheries data for the stocks, stock complexes, and ecosystem component 
species in their FMPs. For all stocks and stock complexes that are ``in 
the fishery,'' the Councils should evaluate and describe the following 
items in their FMPs and amend the FMPs, if necessary, to align their 
management objectives to end or prevent overfishing:
    (1) MSY and SDC (see paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section).
    (2) OY at the stock, stock complex, or fishery level and provide 
the OY specification analysis (see paragraph (e)(3) of this section).
    (3) ABC control rule (see paragraph (f)(4) of this section).
    (4) ACLs and mechanisms for setting ACLs and possible sector-
specific ACLs in relationship to the ABC (see paragraphs (f)(5) and (h) 
of this section).
    (5) ACT control rule (see paragraph (f)(6) of this section).
    (6) AMs and AM mechanisms (see paragraphs (g) and (h)(1) of this 
section).
    (7) Stocks and stock complexes that have statutory exceptions from 
ACLs (see paragraph (h)(2) of this section) or which fall under limited 
circumstances which require different approaches to meet the ACL 
requirements (see paragraph (h)(3) of this section).
    (d) Classifying stocks in an FMP--(1) Introduction. Magnuson-
Stevens Act section 303(a)(2) requires that an FMP contain, among other 
things, a description of the species of fish involved in the fishery. 
FMPs include target stocks and may also include non-target species or 
stocks. All stocks listed in an FMP or FMP amendment are considered to 
be ``in the fishery'' unless they are identified as ecosystem component 
(EC) species through an FMP amendment process.
    (2) Stocks in a fishery. Stocks in a fishery include: Target 
stocks; non-target stocks that are retained for sale or personal use; 
and non-target stocks that are not retained for sale or personal use 
and that are either determined to be subject to overfishing, 
approaching overfished, or overfished, or could become so, according to 
the best available information, without conservation and management 
measures. Stocks in a fishery may be grouped into stock complexes, as 
appropriate. Requirements for reference points and management measures 
for these stocks are described throughout these guidelines.
    (3) ``Target stocks'' are stocks that fishers seek to catch for 
sale or personal use, including ``economic discards'' as defined under 
Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(9).
    (4) ``Non-target species'' and ``non-target stocks'' are fish 
caught incidentally during the pursuit of target stocks in a fishery, 
including ``regulatory discards'' as defined under Magnuson-Stevens Act 
section 3(38). They may or may not be retained for sale or personal 
use. Non-target species may be included in a fishery and, if so, they 
should be identified at the stock level. Some non-target species may be 
identified in an FMP as ecosystem component (EC) species or stocks.
    (5) ``Ecosystem component (EC) species'' are generally not retained 
for any purpose, although de minimis amounts might occasionally be 
retained. EC species may be identified at the species or stock level, 
and may be grouped into complexes. EC species may be included in an FMP 
or FMP amendment for any of the following reasons: For data collection 
purposes; for ecosystem considerations related to specification of OY 
for the associated fishery; as considerations in the development of 
conservation and management measures for the associated fishery; and/or 
to address other ecosystem issues. While EC species are not considered 
to be ``in the fishery,'' a Council should consider measures for the 
fishery to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of EC species 
consistent with National Standard 9, and to protect their associated 
role in the ecosystem. EC species do not require specification of 
reference points but should be monitored on a regular basis, to the 
extent practicable, to determine changes in their status or their 
vulnerability to the fishery. If necessary, they should be reclassified 
as ``in the fishery.''
    (6) Reclassification. A Council should monitor the catch resulting 
from a fishery on a regular basis to determine if the stocks and 
species are appropriately classified in the FMP. If the criteria 
previously used to classify a stock or species is no longer valid, the 
Council should reclassify it through an FMP amendment, which documents 
rationale for the decision.
    (7) Stocks or species identified in more than one FMP. If a stock 
is identified in more than one fishery, Councils should choose which 
FMP will be the primary FMP in which management objectives, SDC, and 
other reference points for the stock are established. In most cases, 
the primary

[[Page 32540]]

FMP for a stock will be the one in which the stock is identified as a 
target stock. Other FMPs in which the stock is identified as part of a 
fishery should be consistent with the primary FMP.
    (8) Stock complex. ``Stock complex'' means a group of stocks that 
are sufficiently similar in geographic distribution, life history, and 
vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of management 
actions on the stocks is similar. Stocks may be grouped into complexes 
for various reasons, including where stocks in a multispecies fishery 
cannot be targeted independent of one another; where there is 
insufficient data to measure their status relative to SDC; or when it 
is not feasible for fishermen to distinguish individual stocks among 
their catch. The vulnerability of stocks to the fishery should be 
evaluated when determining if a particular stock complex should be 
established or reorganized, or if a particular stock should be included 
in a complex. Stock complexes may be comprised of: One or more 
indicator stocks, each of which has SDC and ACLs, and several other 
stocks; several stocks without an indicator stock, with SDC and an ACL 
for the complex as a whole; or one of more indicator stocks, each of 
which has SDC and management objectives, with an ACL for the complex as 
a whole (this situation might be applicable to some salmon species).
    (9) Indicator stocks. An indicator stock is a stock that is used to 
help manage and evaluate stocks that are in a stock complex and do not 
have their own SDC. If an indicator stock is used to evaluate the 
status of a complex, it should be representative of the typical status 
of each stock within the complex, due to similarity in vulnerability. 
If the stocks within a stock complex have a wide range of 
vulnerability, they should be reorganized into different stock 
complexes that have similar vulnerabilities; otherwise the indicator 
stock should be chosen to represent the more vulnerable stocks within 
the complex. In instances where an indicator stock is less vulnerable 
than other members of the complex, management measures need to be more 
conservative so that the more vulnerable members of the complex are not 
at risk from the fishery. More than one indicator stock can be selected 
to provide more information about the status of the complex. Although 
the indicator stock(s) are used to evaluate the status of the complex, 
individual stocks within complexes should be examined periodically 
using available quantitative or qualitative information to evaluate 
whether a stock has become overfished or may be subject to overfishing.
    (e) Features of MSY, SDC, and OY that should be identified in FMPs 
for all stocks and stock complexes in the fishery--(1) MSY. Each FMP 
should include an estimate of MSY for the stocks and stock complexes in 
the fishery, as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
    (i) Definitions. (A) MSY is the largest long-term average catch or 
yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under prevailing 
ecological, environmental conditions and fishery technological 
characteristics (e.g., gear selectivity), and the distribution of catch 
among fleets.
    (B) MSY fishing mortality rate (Fmsy) is the fishing mortality rate 
that, if applied over the long term, would result in MSY.
    (C) MSY stock size (Bmsy) means the long-term average size of the 
stock or stock complex, measured in terms of spawning biomass or other 
appropriate measure of the stock's reproductive potential that would be 
achieved by fishing at F<INF>msy</INF>.
    (ii) MSY for stocks. MSY should be estimated for each stock based 
on the best scientific information available (see Sec.  600.315).
    (iii) MSY for stock complexes. MSY should be estimated on a stock-
by-stock basis whenever possible. However, where MSY cannot be 
estimated for each stock in a stock complex, then MSY may be estimated 
for one or more indicator stocks for the complex or for the complex as 
a whole. When indicator stocks are used, the stock complex's MSY could 
be listed as ``unknown,'' while noting that the complex is managed on 
the basis of one or more indicator stocks that do have known, stock-
specific MSYs or suitable proxies as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) 
of this section. When indicator stocks are not used, MSY or a suitable 
proxy should be calculated for the stock complex as a whole.
    (iv) Specifying MSY. Because MSY is a long-term average, it need 
not be estimated annually, but it must be based on the best scientific 
information available (see Sec.  600.315), and should be re-estimated 
as required by changes in long-term environmental or ecological 
conditions, fishery technological characteristics, or new scientific 
information. When data are insufficient to estimate MSY directly, 
Councils should adopt other measures of reproductive potential, based 
on the best scientific information available, that can serve as 
reasonable proxies for MSY, F<INF>msy</INF>, and B<INF>msy</INF>, to 
the extent possible. As MSY values are estimates and will have some 
level of uncertainty associated with them, the degree of uncertainty in 
the estimates should be identified, when possible, through the stock 
assessment process and peer review (see Sec.  600.335).
    (2) Status determination criteria--(i) Definitions--(A) Status 
determination criteria (SDC) mean the quantifiable factors, MFMT, OFL, 
and MSST, or their proxies, that are used to determine if overfishing 
has occurred, or if the stock or stock complex is overfished. Magnuson-
Stevens Act (section 3(34)) defines both ``overfishing'' and 
``overfished'' to mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that 
jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the MSY on a 
continuing basis. To avoid confusion, this section clarifies that 
``overfished'' relates to biomass of a stock or stock complex, and 
``overfishing'' pertains to a rate or level of removal of fish from a 
stock or stock complex.
    (B) Overfishing (to overfish) occurs whenever a stock or stock 
complex is subjected to a level of fishing mortality or annual total 
catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to 
produce MSY on a continuing basis.
    (C) Maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) means the level of 
fishing mortality (F), on an annual basis, above which overfishing is 
occurring.
    (D) Overfishing limit (OFL) means the annual amount of catch that 
corresponds to the estimate of MFMT applied to a stock or stock 
complex's abundance and is expressed in terms of numbers or weight of 
fish. MSY is the long-term average of such catches.
    (E) Overfished. A stock or stock complex is considered 
``overfished'' when its biomass has declined below a level that 
jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY 
on a continuing basis.
    (F) Minimum stock size threshold (MSST) means the level of biomass 
below which the stock or stock complex is considered to be overfished.
    (G) Approaching an overfished condition. A stock or stock complex 
is approaching an overfished condition when it is projected that there 
is more than a 50 percent chance that the biomass of the stock or stock 
complex will decline below the MSST within two years.
    (ii) Specification of SDC and overfishing and overfished 
determinations. SDC must be expressed in a way that enables the Council 
to monitor each stock or stock complex in the FMP and determine 
annually, if possible, whether overfishing is occurring and whether the 
stock or stock complex is overfished. In

[[Page 32541]]

specifying SDC, a Council should provide an analysis of how the SDC 
were chosen and how they relate to reproductive potential. Each FMP 
must specify, to the extent possible, objective and measurable SDC as 
follows (see paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section):
    (A) SDC to determine overfishing status. Each FMP should describe 
which of the following two methods will be used for each stock or stock 
complex to determine an overfishing status.
    (1) Fishing mortality rate exceeds MFMT. Exceeding the MFMT for a 
period of 1 year or more constitutes overfishing. The MFMT or 
reasonable proxy may be expressed either as a single number (a fishing 
mortality rate or F value), or as a function of spawning biomass or 
other measure of reproductive potential. The MFMT must not exceed 
F<INF>msy</INF>.
    (2) Catch exceeds the OFL. Should the annual catch exceed the 
annual OFL for 1 year or more, the stock or stock complex is considered 
subject to overfishing.
    (B) SDC to determine overfished status. The MSST or reasonable 
proxy should be expressed in terms of spawning biomass or other measure 
of reproductive potential. To the extent possible, the MSST should 
equal whichever of the following is greater: One-half the MSY stock 
size, or the minimum stock size at which rebuilding to the MSY level 
would be expected to occur within 10 years if the stock or stock 
complex were exploited at the MFMT specified under paragraph 
(e)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this section. Should the estimated size of the 
stock or stock complex in a given year fall below this threshold, the 
stock or stock complex is considered overfished.
    (iii) Relationship of SDC to environmental change. Some short-term 
environmental changes can alter the size of a stock or stock complex 
without affecting its long-term reproductive potential. Long-term 
environmental changes affect both the short-term size of the stock or 
stock complex and the long-term reproductive potential of the stock or 
stock complex.
    (A) If environmental changes cause a stock or stock complex to fall 
below its MSST without affecting its long-term reproductive potential, 
fishing mortality must be constrained sufficiently to allow rebuilding 
within an acceptable time frame (also see paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of this 
section). SDC should not be respecified.
    (B) If environmental changes affect the long-term reproductive 
potential of the stock or stock complex, one or more components of the 
SDC must be respecified. Once SDC have been respecified, fishing 
mortality may or may not have to be reduced, depending on the status of 
the stock or stock complex with respect to the new criteria.
    (C) If manmade environmental changes are partially responsible for 
a stock or stock complex being in an overfished condition, in addition 
to controlling fishing mortality, Councils should recommend restoration 
of habitat and other ameliorative programs, to the extent possible (see 
also the guidelines issued pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for Council actions concerning essential fish habitat).
    (iv) Secretarial approval of SDC. Secretarial approval or 
disapproval of proposed SDC will be based on consideration of whether 
the proposal:
    (A) Has sufficient scientific merit;
    (B) Contains the elements described in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 
section;
    (C) Provides a basis for objective measurement of the status of the 
stock or stock complex against the criteria; and
    (D) Is operationally feasible.
    (3) Optimum yield--(i) Definitions--(A) Optimum yield (OY). 
Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(33) defines ``optimum,'' with respect to 
the yield from a fishery, as the amount of fish that will provide the 
greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to 
food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account 
the protection of marine ecosystems; that is prescribed on the basis of 
the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, 
or ecological factor; and, in the case of an overfished fishery, that 
provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the MSY in 
such fishery. OY may be established at the stock or stock complex 
level, or at the fishery level.
    (B) In NS1, use of the phrase ``achieving, on a continuing basis, 
the optimum yield from each fishery'' means producing, from each stock, 
stock complex, or fishery: A long-term series of catches such that the 
average catch is equal to the OY, overfishing is prevented, the long 
term average biomass is near or above Bmsy, and overfished stocks and 
stock complexes are rebuilt consistent with timing and other 
requirements of section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
paragraph (j) of this section.
    (ii) General. OY is a long-term average amount of desired yield 
from a stock, stock complex, or fishery. The long-term objective is to 
achieve OY through annual achievement of ACT, which is described in 
paragraph (f) of this section. An FMP must contain conservation and 
management measures to achieve OY, and provisions for information 
collection that are designed to determine the degree to which OY is 
achieved on a continuing basis--that is, to result in a long-term 
average catch equal to the long-term average OY, through an effective 
system of ACLs, ACTs, and AMs. These measures should allow for 
practical and effective implementation and enforcement of the 
management regime. The Secretary has an obligation to implement and 
enforce the FMP. If management measures prove unenforceable--or too 
restrictive, or not rigorous enough to prevent overfishing while 
achieving OY--they should be modified; an alternative is to reexamine 
the adequacy of the OY specification. Exceeding OY does not necessarily 
constitute overfishing. However, even if no overfishing resulted from 
exceeding OY, continual harvest at a level above OY would violate NS1, 
because OY was not achieved on a continuing basis. An FMP must contain 
an assessment and specification of OY, including a summary of 
information utilized in making such specification, consistent with 
requirements of section 303(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A 
Council must identify those economic, social, and ecological factors 
relevant to management of a particular stock, stock complex, or 
fishery, then evaluate them to determine the OY. The choice of a 
particular OY must be carefully documented to show that the OY selected 
will produce the greatest benefit to the Nation and prevent 
overfishing.
    (iii) Determining the greatest benefit to the Nation. In 
determining the greatest benefit to the Nation, the values that should 
be weighed and receive serious attention when considering the economic, 
social, or ecological factors used in reducing MSY to obtain OY are:
    (A) The benefits of food production are derived from providing 
seafood to consumers; maintaining an economically viable fishery 
together with its attendant contributions to the national, regional, 
and local economies; and utilizing the capacity of the Nation's fishery 
resources to meet nutritional needs.
    (B) The benefits of recreational opportunities reflect the quality 
of both the recreational fishing experience and non-consumptive fishery 
uses such as ecotourism, fish watching, and recreational diving. 
Benefits also include the contribution of recreational fishing to the 
national, regional, and local economies and food supplies.
    (C) The benefits of protection afforded to marine ecosystems are 
those resulting

[[Page 32542]]

from maintaining viable populations (including those of unexploited 
species), maintaining adequate forage for all components of the 
ecosystem, maintaining evolutionary and ecological processes (e.g., 
disturbance regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles), 
maintaining the evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems, and 
accommodating human use.
    (iv) Factors to consider in OY specification. Because fisheries 
have limited capacities, any attempt to maximize the measures of 
benefits described in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section will 
inevitably encounter practical constraints. OY cannot exceed MSY in any 
circumstance and must take into account the need to prevent overfishing 
and rebuild overfished stocks and stock complexes. OY can be reduced to 
a value less than MSY based on social, economic, and ecological 
factors. To the extent possible, the relevant social, economic, and 
ecological factors used to establish OY for a stock, stock complex, or 
fishery should be quantified and reviewed in historical, short-term, 
and long-term contexts. Even where quantification of these factors is 
not possible, the FMP still must address these factors in its OY 
specification.
    (A) Social factors. Examples are enjoyment gained from recreational 
fishing, avoidance of gear conflicts and resulting disputes, 
preservation of a way of life for fishermen and their families, and 
dependence of local communities on a fishery (e.g., involvement in 
fisheries and ability to adapt to change). Consideration may be given 
to fishery-related indicators (e.g., number of fishery permits, number 
of commercial fishing vessels, number of party and charter trips, 
landings, ex-vessel revenues etc.) and non-fishery related indicators 
(e.g., unemployment rates, percent of population below the poverty 
level, population density, etc.). Other factors that may be considered 
include the effects that past harvest levels have had on fishing 
communities, the cultural place of subsistence fishing, obligations 
under Indian treaties, proportions of affected minority and low-income 
groups, and worldwide nutritional needs.
    (B) Economic factors. Examples are prudent consideration of the 
risk of overharvesting when a stock's size or reproductive potential is 
uncertain (see Sec.  600.335(c)(2)(i)), satisfaction of consumer and 
recreational needs, and encouragement of domestic and export markets 
for U.S. harvested fish. Other factors that may be considered include 
the value of fisheries, the level of capitalization, the decrease in 
cost per unit of catch afforded by an increase in stock size, the 
attendant increase in catch per unit of effort, alternate employment 
opportunities, and economic contribution to fishing communities, 
coastal areas, affected states, and the nation.
    (C) Ecological factors. Examples include impacts on ecosystem 
component species, forage fish stocks, other fisheries, predator-prey 
or competitive interactions, marine mammals, threatened or endangered 
species, and birds. Species interactions that have not been explicitly 
taken into account when calculating MSY should be considered as 
relevant factors for setting OY below MSY. In addition, consideration 
should be given to managing forage stocks for higher biomass than 
B<INF>msy</INF> to enhance and protect the marine ecosystem. Also 
important are ecological or environmental conditions that stress marine 
organisms, such as natural and manmade changes in wetlands or nursery 
grounds, and effects of pollutants on habitat and stocks.
    (v) Specification of OY. The specification of OY must be consistent 
with preventing overfishing and should be reduced from MSY to account 
for scientific uncertainty in calculating MSY, and economic, social, 
and ecological factors such as those described in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) 
of this section. If the estimates of MFMT and current biomass are known 
with a high level of certainty and management controls can accurately 
limit catch to the ACT then OY could be set very close to MSY. To the 
degree that such MSY estimates and management controls are lacking or 
unavailable, OY should be set farther from MSY. In order to achieve OY 
in the long term, catch targets (i.e., ACT) should be set below catch 
limits (i.e., ACLs) based on the degree of management control so that 
average catch (or average ACT) approximates OY (see paragraph (f)(6) of 
this section). If management measures cannot adequately control fishing 
mortality so that the specified OY can be achieved without overfishing, 
the Council should reevaluate the management measures and specification 
of OY so that the dual requirements of NS1 (preventing overfishing 
while achieving, on a continuing basis, OY) are met.
    (A) The amount of fish that constitutes the OY should be expressed 
in terms of numbers or weight of fish. As a long-term average, OY 
cannot exceed MSY.
    (B) Either a range or a single value may be specified for OY. 
Specification of a numerical, fixed-value OY does not preclude use of 
ACTs that vary with stock size or management precision. For example, an 
ACT control rule (described in paragraph (f)(6) of this section) might 
prescribe a smaller ACT if there is less management precision.
    (C) All catch must be counted against OY, including that resulting 
from bycatch, scientific research, and all fishing activities.
    (D) The OY specification should be translatable into an annual 
numerical estimate for the purposes of establishing any total allowable 
level of foreign fishing (TALFF) and analyzing impacts of the 
management regime.
    (E) The determination of OY is based on MSY, directly or through 
proxy. However, even where sufficient scientific data as to the 
biological characteristics of the stock do not exist, or where the 
period of exploitation or investigation has not been long enough for 
adequate understanding of stock dynamics, or where frequent large-scale 
fluctuations in stock size diminish the meaningfulness of the MSY 
concept, OY must still be established based on the best scientific 
information available.
    (F) An OY established at a fishery level may not exceed the sum of 
the MSY values for each of the stocks or stock complexes within the 
fishery. If OY is specified at a fishery level, the sum of the ACTs for 
the stocks and stock complexes in the fishery should approximate OY.
    (G) There should be a mechanism in the FMP for periodic 
reassessment of the OY specification, so that it is responsive to 
changing circumstances in the fishery.
    (H) Part of the OY may be held as a reserve to allow for factors 
such as uncertainties in estimates of stock size and domestic annual 
harvest (DAH). If an OY reserve is established, an adequate mechanism 
should be included in the FMP to permit timely release of the reserve 
to domestic or foreign fishermen, if necessary.
    (vi) OY and foreign fishing. Section 201(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act provides that fishing by foreign nations is limited to that portion 
of the OY that will not be harvested by vessels of the United States. 
The FMP must include an assessment to address the following, as 
required by section 303(a)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act:
    (A) DAH. Councils and/or the Secretary must consider the capacity 
of, and the extent to which, U.S. vessels will harvest the OY on an 
annual basis. Estimating the amount that U.S. fishing vessels will 
actually harvest is required to determine the surplus.
    (B) Domestic annual processing (DAP). Each FMP must assess the 
capacity of U.S. processors. It must also

[[Page 32543]]

assess the amount of DAP, which is the sum of two estimates: The 
estimated amount of U.S. harvest that domestic processors will process, 
which may be based on historical performance or on surveys of the 
expressed intention of manufacturers to process, supported by evidence 
of contracts, plant expansion, or other relevant information; and the 
estimated amount of fish that will be harvested by domestic vessels, 
but not processed (e.g., marketed as fresh whole fish, used for private 
consumption, or used for bait).
    (C) Joint venture processing (JVP). When DAH exceeds DAP, the 
surplus is available for JVP.
    (f) Acceptable biological catch, annual catch limits, and annual 
catch targets. The following features (see paragraphs (f)(1) through 
(f)(7) of this section) of acceptable biological catch, annual catch 
limits, and annual catch targets apply to stocks and stock complexes in 
the fishery (see paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
    (1) Introduction. A control rule is a policy for establishing a 
limit or target fishing level that is based on the best available 
scientific information and is established by fishery managers in 
consultation with fisheries scientists. Control rules should be 
designed so that management actions become more conservative as biomass 
estimates, or other proxies, for a stock or stock complex decline and 
as science and management uncertainty increases. Paragraph (f) of this 
section describes a three-step approach for setting limits and targets 
so as to ensure a low risk of overfishing while achieving, on a 
continuing basis, OY: First, ABC is set below the OFL to account for 
scientific uncertainty in calculating the OFL; second, ACL is set at an 
amount not to exceed the ABC; and third, ACT is set at an amount not to 
exceed the ACL to account for management uncertainty in controlling a 
fishery's actual catch.
    (2) Definitions. (i) Catch is the total quantity of fish, measured 
in weight or numbers of fish, taken in commercial, recreational, 
subsistence, tribal, and other fisheries. Catch includes fish that are 
retained for any purpose, as well as mortality of fish that are 
discarded.
    (ii) Acceptable biological catch (ABC) is a level of a stock or 
stock complex's annual catch that accounts for the scientific 
uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and should be specified based on the 
ABC control rule.
    (iii) ABC control rule means a specified approach to setting the 
ABC for a stock or stock complex as a function of the scientific 
uncertainty in the estimate of OFL.
    (iv) Annual catch limit (ACL) is the level of annual catch of a 
stock or stock complex that serves as the basis for invoking AMs. ACL 
cannot exceed the ABC, but may be divided into sector-ACLs (see 
paragraph (f)(5) of this section).
    (v) Annual catch target (ACT) is an amount of annual catch of a 
stock or stock complex that is the management target of the fishery. A 
stock or stock complex's ACT should usually be less than its ACL and 
results from the application of the ACT control rule. If sector-ACLs 
have been established, each one should have a sector-ACT.
    (vi) ACT control rule means a specified approach to setting the ACT 
for each stock or stock complex such that the risk of exceeding the ACL 
due to management uncertainty is at an acceptably low level.
    (3) Specification of ABC. ABC may not exceed OFL (see paragraph 
(e)(2)(i)(D) of this section) and is recommended to be reduced from OFL 
to account for scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. Councils 
should develop a process for receiving scientific information and 
advice used to establish ABC. This process should: Establish an ABC 
control rule, identify the body that will apply the ABC control rule 
(i.e., calculates the ABC), identify the review process that will 
verify the resulting ABC, and confirm that the SSC recommends the ABC 
to the Council. For Secretarial FMPs or FMP amendments, agency 
scientists or a peer review process would provide the scientific advice 
to establish ABC. For internationally-assessed stocks, an ABC as 
defined in these guidelines is not required.
    (i) Expression of ABC. ABC should be expressed in terms of catch, 
but may be expressed in terms of landings as long as estimates of 
bycatch and any other fishing mortality not accounted for in the 
landings are incorporated into the determination of ABC.
    (ii) ABC for overfished stocks. For overfished stocks and stock 
complexes, a rebuilding ABC must be set to reflect the annual catch 
that is consistent with the target fishing mortality rates in the 
rebuilding plan.
    (4) ABC control rule. For stocks and stock complexes required to 
have an ABC, each Council should establish an ABC control rule based on 
scientific advice from its SSC. The process of establishing an ABC 
control rule could also involve science advisors or the peer review 
process established under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(E). 
The ABC control rule should clearly articulate how far below the OFL, 
or OFL proxy, the ABC will be set based on the level of scientific 
knowledge about the stock or stock complex and the scientific 
uncertainty in the estimate of OFL. The ABC control rule should take 
into account uncertainty in factors such as stock assessment results, 
time lags in updating assessments, the degree of retrospective revision 
of assessment results, and projections. The control rule may be used in 
a tiered approach to address different levels of scientific 
uncertainty.
    (5) Setting the annual catch limit--(i) General. ACL cannot exceed 
the ABC and may be set annually or on a multiyear plan basis. A 
``multiyear plan'' as referenced in section 303(a)(15) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act is a plan that establishes harvest specifications or 
harvest guidelines for each year of a time period greater than 1 year. 
A multiyear plan should include ACLs and ACTs for each year with 
appropriate AMs to prevent overfishing and maintain an appropriate rate 
of rebuilding if the stock or stock complex is in a rebuilding plan. 
The AMs specified for a multiyear plan should provide that, if an ACL 
is exceeded for a year, then a subsequent year's harvest specification 
(including ACLs and ACTs) could be revised.
    (ii) Sector ACLs. A Council may, but is not required to, divide an 
ACL into sector-ACLs. ``Sector,'' for purposes of this section, means a 
distinct user group to which separate management strategies and 
separate catch quotas apply. Examples of sectors include the commercial 
sector, recreational sector, or various gear groups within a fishery. 
Sector-AMs must be developed for each sector-ACL, and the sum of sector 
ACLs must not exceed the stock or stock complex level ACL. The system 
of ACLs and AMs designed must be effective and equitable and protect 
the stock or stock complex as a whole. If sector-ACLs and AMs are 
established, additional AMs at the stock or stock complex level would 
also be appropriate.
    (iii) ACLs for State-Federal Fisheries. For stocks or stock 
complexes that have a large majority of harvest in state or territorial 
waters, FMPs and FMP amendments should include an ACL for the overall 
stock that may be further divided. For example, the overall ACL could 
be divided into a federal-ACL and state-ACL. However, NMFS recognizes 
that federal management would be limited to the portion of the fishery 
under federal authority (see paragraph (g)(5) of this section). When 
stocks are co-managed by federal, state, tribal, and/or territorial 
fishery managers, the goal should be to develop collaborative 
conservation and management

[[Page 32544]]

strategies, and scientific capacity to support such strategies, to 
prevent overfishing of shared stocks and ensure their sustainability.
    (6) ACT control rule. For stocks and stock complexes required to 
have an ACL, each Council should establish ACT control rules for 
setting the ACTs. The ACT control rule should clearly articulate how 
far below the ACL the target will be established based on the amount of 
management uncertainty associated with harvest of a stock or stock 
complex. For example, the ACT may need to be set further below the ACL 
in fisheries where inseason monitoring of catch data is unavailable or 
infeasible, or where AMs are established using a multi-year averaging 
approach (see paragraph (g)(4) of this section).
    (i) Determining management uncertainty. Two sources of management 
uncertainty should be accounted for in establishing the ACT control 
rule: Uncertainty in the ability of managers to constrain catch to the 
ACT and uncertainty in quantifying the true catch amounts (i.e., 
estimation errors). To determine the level of management uncertainty in 
controlling catch, analyses should consider past management performance 
in the fishery and factors such as time lags in reported catch. Such 
analyses should be based on the best available scientific information 
from an SSC, agency scientists, or peer review process as appropriate.
    (ii) Establishing tiers and corresponding ACT control rules. Tiers 
can be established based on levels of management uncertainty associated 
with the fishery, frequency and accuracy of catch monitoring data 
available, and risks of exceeding the limit. An ACT control rule could 
be established for each tier and have, as appropriate, different 
formulas and standards used to establish the ACT.
    (7) Relationships of OFL to MSY and ACT to OY. The following (see 
paragraphs (f)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section) describes the 
relationships between terms used in ending and preventing overfishing 
and rebuilding overfished stocks and stock complexes.
    (i) Relationship of OFL to MSY. OFL is the amount of catch for a 
particular year that corresponds to the estimate of MFMT applied to a 
stock or stock complex's abundance, and MSY is the long-term average of 
such catches. ABC is recommended to be set below OFL to take into 
account the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL.
    (ii) Relationship of ACT to OY. Paragraphs (a) and (e)(3) of this 
section define and describe OY and the goal of preventing overfishing, 
while achieving on a continuing basis the OY from each stock, stock 
complex, or fishery. Management measures for a fishery should, on an 
annual basis, achieve the ACTs and prevent the ACLs from being 
exceeded. The long-term objective is to achieve OY through annual 
achievement of ACT.
    (g) Accountability measures. The following features (see paragraphs 
(g)(1) through (5) of this section) of accountability measures apply to 
those stocks and stock complexes in the fishery.
    (1) Introduction. AMs are management controls that prevent ACLs or 
sector-ACLs from being exceeded (inseason AMs), where possible, and 
correct or mitigate overages if they occur. AMs should address and 
minimize both the frequency and magnitude of overages and correct the 
problems that caused the overage in as short a time as possible.
    (2) Inseason AMs. Whenever possible, FMPs should include inseason 
monitoring and management measures to prevent catch from exceeding 
ACLs. Inseason AMs could include, but are not limited to, closure of a 
fishery; closure of specific areas; changes in gear; changes in trip 
size or bag limits; reductions in effort; or other appropriate 
management controls for the fishery. If final data or data components 
of catch are delayed, Councils should make appropriate use of 
preliminary data, such as landed catch, in implementing inseason AMs. 
Where timely catch data are available for a stock, FMPs should include 
inseason closure authority to close the fishery on or before the date 
when the ACL for a stock or stock complex is projected to be reached.
    (3) AMs for when the ACL is exceeded. On an annual basis, the 
Council should determine as soon as possible after the fishing year if 
an ACL was exceeded. If an ACL was exceeded, AMs should be triggered 
and implemented as soon as possible to correct the operational issue 
that caused the ACL overage, as well as any biological consequences to 
the stock or stock complex resulting from the overage when it is known. 
These AMs could include, among other things, modifications of inseason 
AMs or overage adjustments. For stocks and stock complexes in 
rebuilding plans, the AMs should include overage adjustments that 
reduce the ACLs in the next fishing year by the full amount of the 
overages, unless the best scientific information available shows that a 
reduced overage adjustment, or no adjustment is needed to mitigate the 
effects of the overages. If catch exceeds the ACL more than once in the 
last four years, the system of ACLs, ACTs and AMs should be re-
evaluated to improve its performance and effectiveness.
    (4) AMs based on multi-year average data. Some fisheries have 
highly variable annual catches and lack reliable inseason or annual 
data on which to base AMs. If there are insufficient data upon which to 
compare catch to ACL, either inseason or on an annual basis, AMs could 
be based on comparisons of average catch to average ACL over a three-
year moving average period or, if supported by analysis, some other 
appropriate multi-year period. Evaluation of the moving average catch 
to the average ACL must be conducted annually. If the average catch 
exceeds the average ACL more than once in the last four years, then the 
ACL, ACT and AM system should be re-evaluated. The initial ACL and 
management measures should incorporate information from previous years 
so that AMs based on average ACLs can be applied from the first year.
    (5) AMs for State-Federal Fisheries. For stocks or stock complexes 
that have a large majority of harvest in state or territorial waters, 
AMs should be developed for the portion of the fishery under federal 
authority and could include closing the EEZ when the federal portion of 
the ACL is reached, or the overall stock's ACL is reached, or other 
measures.
    (h) Establishing ACL and AM mechanisms in FMPs. FMPs or FMP 
amendments should establish ACL and AM mechanisms for all stocks and 
stock complexes in the fishery, unless paragraph (h)(2) of this section 
is applicable. If a complex has multiple indicator stocks, each 
indicator stock must have its own ACL; an additional ACL for the stock 
complex as a whole is optional. In cases where fisheries harvest 
multiple indicator stocks of a single species that cannot be 
distinguished at the time of capture, separate ACLs for the indicator 
stocks are not required and the ACL can be established for the complex 
as a whole.
    (1) In establishing ACL and AM mechanisms, FMPs should describe:
    (i) Timeframes for setting ACLs (e.g., annually or multi-year 
periods);
    (ii) Sector-ACLs, if any (including set-asides for research or 
bycatch);
    (iii) AMs and their relationship to ABC and ACT control rules, 
including how AMs are triggered and what sources of data will be used 
(e.g., inseason data, annual catch compared to the ACL, or multi-year 
averaging approach);
    (iv) Sector-AMs, if there are sector-ACLs; and

[[Page 32545]]

    (v) Fisheries data described in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (2) Exceptions from ACL and AM requirements--(i) Life cycle. 
Section 303(a)(15) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act ``shall not apply to a 
fishery for species that has a life cycle of approximately 1 year 
unless the Secretary has determined the fishery is subject to 
overfishing of that species' (as described in Magnuson-Stevens Act 
section 303 note). This exception applies to a stock for which the 
average length of time it takes for an individual to produce a 
reproductively active offspring is approximately 1 year and that the 
individual has only one breeding season in its life time. While exempt 
from the ACL and AM requirements, FMPs or FMP amendments for these 
stocks should have SDC, MSY, OY, ABC, and an ABC control rule.
    (ii) International fishery agreements. Section 303(a)(15) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act applies ``unless otherwise provided for under an 
international agreement in which the United States participates'' 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303 note). This exception applies to 
stocks or stock complexes subject to management under an international 
agreement, which is defined as ``any bilateral or multilateral treaty, 
convention, or agreement which relates to fishing and to which the 
United States is a party'' (see Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(24)). 
These stocks would still need to have SDC and MSY.
    (3) Flexibility in application of NS1 guidelines. There are limited 
circumstances that may not fit the standard approaches to specification 
of reference points and management measures set forth in these 
guidelines. These include, among other things, conservation and 
management of ESA-listed species, harvests from aquaculture operations, 
and stocks with unusual life history characteristics (e.g., Pacific 
salmon, where the spawning potential for a stock is spread over a 
multi-year period). In these circumstances, Councils may propose 
alternative approaches for satisfying the NS1 requirements of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act than those set forth in these guidelines. Councils 
should document their rationale for any alternative approaches for 
these limited circumstances in an FMP or FMP amendment, which will be 
reviewed for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    (i) Fisheries data. In their FMPs, Councils should describe general 
data collection methods, as well as any specific data collection 
methods used for all stocks, stock complexes, and ecosystem component 
species. FMPs should:
    (1) List sources of fishing mortality (both landed and discarded), 
including commercial and recreational catch and bycatch in other 
fisheries;
    (2) Describe the data collection and estimation methods used to 
quantify total catch mortality in each fishery, including information 
on the management tools used (i.e., logbooks, vessel monitoring 
systems, observer programs, landings reports, fish tickets, processor 
reports, dealer reports, recreational angler surveys, or other 
methods); the frequency with which data are collected and updated; and 
the scope of sampling coverage for each fishery; and
    (3) Describe the methods used to compile catch data from various 
catch data collection methods and how those data are used to determine 
the relationship between total catch at a given point in time and the 
ACL for stocks and stock complexes that are part of a fishery.
    (j) Council actions to address overfishing and rebuilding for 
stocks and stock complexes in the fishery--(1) Notification. The 
Secretary will immediately notify a Council whenever it is determined 
that:
    (i) Overfishing is occurring;
    (ii) A stock or stock complex is overfished;
    (iii) A stock or stock complex is approaching an overfished 
condition; or
    (iv) Existing remedial action taken for the purpose of ending 
previously identified overfishing or rebuilding a previously identified 
overfished stock or stock complex has not resulted in adequate 
progress.
    (2) Timing of actions--(i) If a stock or stock complex is 
undergoing overfishing. FMPs or FMP amendments should establish ACL and 
AM mechanisms in 2010, for stocks and stock complexes determined to be 
subject to overfishing, and in 2011, for all other stocks and stock 
complexes (see paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section). To address 
practical implementation aspects of the FMP and FMP amendment process, 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section clarifies the 
expected timing of actions.
    (A) In addition to establishing ACL and AM mechanisms, the ACLs and 
AMs themselves should be specified in FMPs, FMP amendments, 
implementing regulations, or annual specifications beginning in 2010 or 
2011, as appropriate.
    (B) For stocks and stock complexes still determined to be subject 
to overfishing at the end of 2008, ACL and AM mechanisms and the ACLs 
and AMs themselves should be effective in fishing year 2010.
    (C) For stocks and stock complexes determined to be subject to 
overfishing during 2009, ACL and AM mechanisms and ACLs and AMs 
themselves should be effective in fishing year 2010, if possible, or in 
fishing year 2011, at the latest.
    (ii) If a stock or stock complex is overfished or approaching an 
overfished condition. (A) For notifications that a stock or stock 
complex is overfished or approaching an overfished condition made 
before July 12, 2009, a Council must prepare an FMP, FMP amendment, or 
proposed regulations within one year of notification. If the stock or 
stock complex is overfished, the purpose of the action is to specify a 
time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the stock or stock 
complex that will be as short as possible as described under section 
304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. If the stock or stock complex is 
approaching an overfished condition, the purpose of the action is to 
prevent the biomass from declining below the MSST.
    (B) For notifications that a stock or stock complex is overfished 
made after July 12, 2009, a Council must prepare an FMP, FMP amendment, 
or proposed regulations within two years of notification. Council 
actions should be submitted for Secretarial review within 15 months of 
notification to ensure sufficient time for the Secretary to implement 
the measures, if approved. If the stock or stock complex is overfished 
and overfishing is occurring, the rebuilding plan must end overfishing 
immediately and be consistent with ACL and AM requirements of the 
Magnsuon-Stevens Act.
    (C) For notifications that a stock or stock complex is approaching 
an overfished condition made after July 12, 2009, a Council should take 
immediate action to reduce the likelihood that the stock or stock 
complex will become overfished. Otherwise, the stock or stock complex 
would likely be overfished by the time the two-year timeline to 
implement management measures expired.
    (3) Overfished fishery. (i) Where a stock or stock complex is 
overfished, a Council must specify a time period for rebuilding the 
stock or stock complex based on factors specified in Magnuson-Stevens 
Act section 304(e)(4). This target time for rebuilding 
(T<INF>target</INF>) shall be as short as possible, taking into 
account: The status and biology of any overfished stock, the needs of 
fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in 
which the U.S. participates, and interaction of the

[[Page 32546]]

stock within the marine ecosystem. In addition, the time period shall 
not exceed 10 years, except where biology of the stock, other 
environmental conditions, or management measures under an international 
agreement to which the U.S. participates dictate otherwise. SSCs (or 
agency scientists or peer review processes in the case of Secretarial 
actions) shall provide recommendations for achieving rebuilding targets 
(see Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(B)). The above factors 
enter into the specification of T<INF>target</INF> as follows:
    (A) The ``minimum time for rebuilding a stock'' (T<INF>min</INF>) 
means the amount of time the stock or stock complex is expected to take 
to rebuild to its MSY biomass level in the absence of any fishing 
mortality. In this context, the term ``expected'' means to have at 
least a 50-percent probability of attaining the B<INF>msy</INF>.
    (B) For scenarios under paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
the starting year for the T<INF>min</INF> calculation is the first year 
that a rebuilding plan is implemented. For scenarios under paragraph 
(j)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, the starting year for the 
T<INF>min</INF> calculation is 2 years after notification that a stock 
or stock complex is overfished or the first year that a rebuilding plan 
is implemented, whichever is sooner.
    (C) If T<INF>min</INF> for the stock or stock complex is 10 years 
or less, then the maximum time allowable for rebuilding 
(T<INF>max</INF>) that stock to its B<INF>msy</INF> is 10 years.
    (D) If T<INF>min</INF> for the stock or stock complex exceeds 10 
years, then the maximum time allowable for rebuilding a stock or stock 
complex to its B<INF>msy</INF> is T<INF>min</INF> plus the length of 
time associated with one generation time for that stock or stock 
complex. ``Generation time'' is the average length of time between when 
an individual is born and the birth of its offspring.
    (E) T<INF>target</INF> shall not exceed T<INF>max</INF>, should 
generally be less than T<INF>max</INF>, and should be calculated based 
on the factors described in this paragraph (j)(3) with a priority given 
to rebuilding in as short a time as possible.
    (ii) If a stock or stock complex reached the end of its rebuilding 
plan period and has not yet been determined to be rebuilt, then the 
rebuilding F should not be increased until the stock or stock complex 
has been demonstrated to be rebuilt. If the rebuilding plan was based 
on a T<INF>target</INF> that was less than T<INF>max</INF>, and the 
stock or stock complex is not rebuilt by T<INF>target</INF>, rebuilding 
measures should be revised, if necessary, such that the stock or stock 
complex will be rebuilt by T<INF>max</INF>. If the stock or stock 
complex has not rebuilt by T<INF>max</INF>, and the rebuilding F is 
greater than 75 percent of MFMT, then the rebuilding F should be 
reduced to no more than 75 percent of MFMT until the stock or stock 
complex has been demonstrated to be rebuilt.
    (iii) Council action addressing an overfished fishery must allocate 
both overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and 
equitably among sectors of the fishery.
    (iv) For fisheries managed under an international agreement, 
Council action addressing an overfished fishery must reflect 
traditional participation in the fishery, relative to other nations, by 
fishermen of the United States.
    (4) Emergency actions and interim measures. The Secretary, on his/
her own initiative or in response to a Council request, may implement 
interim measures to reduce overfishing or promulgate regulations to 
address an emergency (Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e)(6) or 
305(c)). In considering a Council request for action, the Secretary 
would consider, among other things, the need for and urgency of the 
action and public interest considerations, such as benefits to the 
stock or stock complex and impacts on participants in the fishery.
    (i) These measures may remain in effect for not more than 180 days, 
but may be extended for an additional 186 days if the public has had an 
opportunity to comment on the measures and, in the case of Council-
recommended measures, the Council is actively preparing an FMP, FMP 
amendment, or proposed regulations to address the emergency or 
overfishing on a permanent basis.
    (ii) Often, these measures need to be implemented without prior 
notice and an opportunity for public comment, as it would be 
impracticable to provide for such processes given the need to act 
quickly and also contrary to the public interest to delay action. 
However, emergency regulations and interim measures that do not qualify 
for waivers or exceptions under the Administrative Procedure Act would 
need to follow proposed notice and comment rulemaking procedures.
    (k) International overfishing. If the Secretary determines that a 
fishery is overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished 
due to excessive international fishing pressure, and for which there 
are no management measures (or no effective measures) to end 
overfishing under an international agreement to which the United States 
is a party, then the Secretary and/or the appropriate Council shall 
take certain actions as provided under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
304(i). The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, 
should immediately take appropriate action at the international level 
to end the overfishing. In addition, within one year after the 
determination, the Secretary and/or appropriate Council shall:
    (1) Develop recommendations for domestic regulations to address the 
relative impact of the U.S. fishing vessels on the stock. Council 
recommendations should be submitted to the Secretary.
    (2) Develop and submit recommendations to the Secretary of State, 
and to the Congress, for international actions that will end 
overfishing in the fishery and rebuild the affected stocks, taking into 
account the relative impact of vessels of other nations and vessels of 
the United States on the relevant stock. Councils should, in 
consultation with the Secretary, develop recommendations that take into 
consideration relevant provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NS1 
guidelines, including section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
paragraph (j)(3)(iv) of this section, and other applicable laws. For 
highly migratory species in the Pacific, recommendations from the 
Western Pacific, North Pacific, or Pacific Councils must be developed 
and submitted consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act 
section 503(f), as appropriate.
    (3) Considerations for assessing ``relative impact.'' ``Relative 
impact'' under paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section may include 
consideration of factors that include, but are not limited to: Domestic 
and international management measures already in place, management 
history of a given nation, estimates of a nation's landings or catch 
(including bycatch) in a given fishery, and estimates of a nation's 
mortality contributions in a given fishery. Information used to 
determine relative impact should be based upon the best available 
scientific information.
    (l) Relationship of National Standard 1 to other national 
standards--(1) National Standard 2 (see Sec.  600.315). Management 
measures and reference points to implement NS1 must be based on the 
best scientific information available. When data are insufficient to 
estimate reference points directly, Councils should develop reasonable 
proxies to the extent possible (also see paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this 
section). In cases where scientific data are severely limited, effort 
should also be directed to identifying and gathering the needed data. 
SSCs should advise their Councils regarding the best scientific 
information

[[Page 32547]]

available for fishery management decisions.
    (2) National Standard 3 (see Sec.  600.320). Reference points 
should generally be specified in terms of the level of stock 
aggregation for which the best scientific information is available 
(also see paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section). Also, scientific 
assessments should be based on the best information about the total 
range of the stock and potential biological structuring of the stock 
into biological sub-units, which may differ from the geographic units 
on which management is feasible.
    (3) National Standard 6 (see Sec.  600.335). Councils must build 
into the reference points and control rules appropriate consideration 
of risk, taking into account uncertainties in estimating harvest, stock 
conditions, life history parameters, or the effects of environmental 
factors.
    (4) National Standard 8 (see Sec.  600.345). Councils must take 
into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities 
when specifying OY and an ACT control rule. Also, see paragraph 
(e)(3)(iv)(A) of this section for more information on how factors that 
relate to fishing communities should be considered when reducing OY 
from MSY.
    (5) National Standard 9 (see Sec.  600.350). Evaluation of stock 
status with respect to reference points must take into account 
mortality caused by bycatch. In addition, the estimation of catch 
should include the mortality of fish that are discarded.
    (m) Exceptions to requirements to prevent overfishing. Exceptions 
to the requirement to prevent overfishing could apply under certain 
limited circumstances. Harvesting one stock at its optimum level may 
result in overfishing of another stock when the two stocks tend to be 
caught together (This can occur when the two stocks are part of the 
same fishery or if one is bycatch in the other's fishery). Before a 
Council may decide to allow this type of overfishing, an analysis must 
be performed and the analysis must contain a justification in terms of 
overall benefits, including a comparison of benefits under alternative 
management measures, and an analysis of the risk of any stock or stock 
complex falling below its MSST. The Council may decide to allow this 
type of overfishing if the analysis demonstrates that all of the 
following conditions are satisfied:
    (1) Such action will result in long-term net benefits to the 
Nation;
    (2) Mitigating measures have been considered and it has been 
demonstrated that a similar level of long-term net benefits cannot be 
achieved by modifying fleet behavior, gear selection/configuration, or 
other technical characteristic in a manner such that no overfishing 
would occur; and
    (3) The resulting rate of fishing mortality will not cause any 
stock or stock complex to fall below its MSST more than 50 percent of 
the time in the long term, although it is recognized that persistent 
overfishing is expected to cause the affected stock to fall below its 
Bmsy more than 50 percent of the time in the long term.

[FR Doc. 08-1328 Filed 6-4-08; 9:34am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P