2786 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 120416013–4641–02] 

RIN 0648–BB92 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

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 Standards 

(NS) 1, 3, and 7 of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) and to the 

General section of the NS guidelines. 

This action is necessary to improve and 

clarify the guidance within the NS 

guidelines. The purpose of this action is 

to facilitate compliance with 

requirements of the MSA to end and 

prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished 

stocks and achieve optimum yield (OY). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2012–0059, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to: 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012- 

0059, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Wesley Patrick, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Room 13357, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

• Fax: 301–713–1193; Attn: Wesley 

Patrick. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. Copies of supporting 

documents can be obtained from Wesley 

Patrick (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wesley Patrick, 301–427–8563 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Purpose and Overview of Proposed 

Revisions 

II. Background 

III. Goals and Objectives of Fishery 

Management Plans 

IV. Stocks That Require Conservation and 

Management 

V. Data Limited Stocks 

VI. Stock Complexes and Indicator Stocks 

VII. Aggregate Maximum Sustainable Yield 

(MSY) Estimates 

VIII. Developing a Definition for ‘‘Depleted’’ 

IX. Developing an Alternative Definition of 

Overfishing To Include a Multi-Year 

Approach 

X. Revising Optimum Yield (OY) Guidance 

XI. Acceptable Biological Catch and Annual 

Catch Limit Guidance 

XII. Accountability Measures 

XIII. Establishing Annual Catch Limit (ACL) 

and Accountability Measure (AM) 

Mechanisms 

XIV. Adding Flexibility in Rebuilding 

XV. Recreational Fisheries 

XVI. Republishing Codified Text in its 

Entirety 

XVII. References Cited 

XVIII. Classification 

I. Purpose and Overview of Proposed 

Revisions 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) fulfills the requirements of 

section 301(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA)—‘‘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’’—with its National 

Standard (NS) guidelines that appear at 

50 CFR 600.305 through 600.355. NMFS 

is proposing revisions to the General 

section of the NS guidelines and the 

guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7. Since 

2007, fisheries management within the 

U.S. has experienced many changes, in 

particular the development and 

implementation of annual catch limits 

(ACLs) and accountability measures 

(AMs) under all fishery management 

plans to end and prevent overfishing. 

Based on this experience, NMFS 

believes the NS guidelines can be 

improved to enhance the utility of the 

guidelines for managers and the public. 

The objective of these proposed 

revisions is to improve and streamline 

the NS1 guidelines, address concerns 

raised during the implementation of 

ACLs and AMs, and provide flexibility 

within current statutory limits to 

address fishery management issues. The 

purpose of this action is to facilitate 

compliance with requirements of the 

MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., to end and 

prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished 

stocks, and achieve optimum yield 

(OY). The proposed revisions would not 

establish new, specific requirements or 

require Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils) to revise their Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs) to comply 

with the MSA. Rather, the proposal 

offers additional clarity and potential 

alternatives to highlight the current 

flexibility in meeting the MSA’s current 

mandates. 

Proposed revisions to the General 

section of the NS guidelines and the 

guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7 

include the following: (1) Add a 

recommendation that Councils reassess 

the objectives of their fisheries on a 

regular basis; (2) consolidate and clarify 

guidance on identifying whether stocks 

require conservation and management; 

(3) provide additional flexibility in 

managing data limited stocks; (4) revise 

the guidance on stock complexes to 

encourage the use of indicator stocks; 

(5) describe how aggregate maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY) estimates can 

be used; (6) propose a definition for a 

depleted stock; (7) provide increased 

stability in fisheries by providing 

guidance on the use of multi-year 

overfishing determinations; (8) revise 

the guidance on optimum yield (OY) to 

improve clarity and better describe the 

role of OY under the Annual Catch 

Limit (ACL) framework; (9) clarify the 

guidance on acceptable biological catch 

(ABC) control rules, describe how the 

ABC control rules can allow for phasein adjustments to ABC, and allow for 

carry-over of all or some of an unused 

portion of the ACL; (10) revise the 

guidance on accountability measures 

(AMs) to improve clarity; (11) clarify the 

guidance on establishing ACL and AM 

mechanisms in FMPs; and (12) provide 

flexibility in rebuilding stocks. Further 

explanations of the major revisions that 

are being proposed, and the rationale for 

those revisions, are provided below. 

II. Background 

Section 301(a) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) contains 10 

national standards for fishery 

conservation and management. Any 

FMP prepared under the MSA, and any 

regulation promulgated pursuant to the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2787 

MSA to implement any such plan, must 

be consistent with these national 

standards. National Standard 1 (NS1) of 

the MSA states that conservation and 

management measures shall prevent 

overfishing while achieving, on a 

continuing basis, the OY from each 

fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. 

National Standard 3 (NS3) of the MSA 

states that, to the extent practicable, an 

individual stock of fish shall be 

managed as a unit throughout its range, 

and interrelated stocks of fish shall be 

managed as a unit or in close 

coordination. National Standard 7 (NS7) 

of the MSA states that conservation and 

management measures shall, where 

practicable, minimize costs and avoid 

unnecessary duplication. 

Guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7 

were first published in 1977 (42 FR 

34450, July 5, 1977) and are codified in 

50 CFR 600.310, 600.320, and 600.340, 

respectively. NMFS last revised the NS1 

guidelines on January 16, 2009, to 

provide guidance for the 

implementation of requirements enacted 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 for annual 

catch limits (ACLs) and accountability 

measures (AMs) to end and prevent 

overfishing (74 FR 3178). The NS3 and 

NS7 guidelines were last revised in 

1998 (63 FR 24212, May 1, 1998). 

From 2007 to 2012, the 46 Federal 

FMPs have been amended to implement 

ACLs and AMs to end and prevent 

overfishing. This has been a 

transformative process for Federal 

fisheries; before the ACL requirement, 

some U.S. fisheries were managed under 

a total allowable catch system, but the 

majority were managed through effort 

controls (e.g., days at sea, closures) or 

without explicit accountability. 

Due to a number of concerns raised 

during the implementation of ACLs and 

AMs, NMFS published an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

on May 3, 2012, (77 FR 26238) to solicit 

public comments on potential 

adjustments to the NS1 guidelines. The 

comment period on the ANPR was 

extended once (77 FR 39459, July 3, 

2012), and then reopened (77 FR 58086, 

Sept. 19, 2012), and ended on October 

12, 2012. In March 2013, NMFS 

published a report that summarizes the 

comments received on the ANPR; the 

report is available online at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/

national_standards/ns1_revisions.html. 

In addition to the ANPR, issues 

related to the national standard 

guidelines were discussed at other 

public forums. In May 2013, NMFS 

sponsored the Managing Our Nation’s 

Fisheries 3 conference in Washington, 

DC. The conference focused on 

identifying ways to advance 

sustainability within U.S. fisheries. The 

discussions at the conference addressed 

MSA reauthorization issues, as well as 

adjustments to current management 

(including potential revisions to the 

NS1 guidelines) that do not require 

legislation to implement. More 

information about the conference is 

available here: http://

www.managingfisheries.org/. In 

September 2013, in response to a 2010 

request from Congress, the National 

Research Council released its report 

titled ‘‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the 

United States.’’ This included an 

evaluation of success in stock 

rebuilding, an investigation of the 

effects of uncertainty, and identification 

of means to better account for social, 

economic and ecosystem factors in the 

rebuilding plans. The purpose of the 

report was to help NOAA and the 

regional Councils better construct 

efficient and effective rebuilding plans. 

More information about the report is 

available here: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/

national_standards/rebuilding.htm. 

In December 2013, the Marine 

Fisheries Advisory Committee 

Recreational Fishing Group presented 

NMFS with a white paper on 

recreational fisheries perspectives. The 

paper included recommendations for 

possible changes to the MSA, as well as 

possible changes to fishing regulations 

and policy. The full report can be found 

here: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/

management/recreational/2014_

summit/pre-summit_resources.html. In 

February 2014, the Commission on 

Saltwater Recreational Fisheries 

Management published its report, A 

Vision for Managing America’s 

Saltwater Recreational Fisheries, 

providing recommendations for 

management measures to address the 

needs of the recreational community 

(Morris and Deal 2014). The report can 

be found here: http://asafishing.org/

uploads/Marine_Visioning_Report_

January_2014.pdf. Lastly, NMFS 

provided updates on the NS1 guidelines 

at Council Coordination Committee 

(CCC) meetings in 2013 and 2014. The 

CCC consists of the chairs, vice chairs, 

and executive directors from each 

regional Council, or other staff, as 

appropriate. This committee meets 

twice each year to discuss issues 

relevant to all Councils, including 

issues related to the implementation of 

the MSA. More information about CCC 

meetings can be found here: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/

councils/ccc/ccc.htm. 

III. Goals and Objectives of Fishery 

Management Plans 

The General section of the NS 

guidelines, 50 CFR 600.305, describes 

the purpose of the NS guidelines and 

the importance of identifying fishery 

management objectives within a FMP, 

and defines words that are used 

throughout the NS guidelines. This 

section was last revised in 1998 (63 FR 

24211, May 1, 1998). More recently, 

stakeholders, Councils, and NMFS have 

recognized the importance of reevaluating the management objectives of 

FMPs on a regular basis, because the 

needs of the fishery may change over 

time. Examples of re-evaluations 

include Council discussions over 

allocation of catch among sectors of the 

fishery, and visioning projects that 

several Councils have initiated to 

identify long-term objectives for its 

fisheries. Measureable goals and 

objectives are an integral part of the 

adaptive fishery management system 

used in the United States, where such 

metrics are used to measure the 

performance of the management actions 

taken by the Councils (see, e.g., Punt 

2006; Hilborn 2007; Levin et al. 2009). 

To highlight the importance of having 

well-defined management objectives, 

and as part of NOAA’s effort to carry out 

the President’s directive in Executive 

Order 13563 to conduct retrospective 

analysis of existing significant 

regulations, NMFS proposes to add a 

statement to § 600.305(b) to recommend 

that Councils should reassess the 

objectives of their fisheries on a regular 

basis to reflect the changing needs of the 

fishery over time (see § 600.305(b)(2) of 

this proposed action). Similarly, NMFS 

proposes to recommend that Councils 

consider the management objectives of 

their FMPs and their management 

framework to determine the relevant 

factors to determine OY (see section X 

of the preamble and 

§ 600.310(e)(3)(iii)(B) of this proposed 

action). NMFS chose not to proscribe a 

set time period for ‘‘a regular basis’’ in 

order to provide the Councils the 

flexibility to determine this time frame 

themselves; although no time frame is 

proscribed, Councils should provide 

notice to the public of their expected 

schedule for review. Given the scope 

and complexity of such a task, NMFS 

does not expect Councils to reassess 

their FMP objectives every few years; 

rather, some longer time frame which 

staggers the review of each FMP may be 

more appropriate. For example, limited 

access privilege programs (a type of 

catch share program) must be formally 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2788 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1The list of factors are based on concepts from 

the current NS1 guidelines (see § 600.305(c)(2)(ii) 

and (iv) of this proposed action), the NS7 guidelines 

(see § 600.305(c)(2)(iii), (vi)–(x) of this proposed 

action), the MSA definition of conservation and 

management (see § 600.305(c)(2)(i) of this proposed 

action), and other provisions of the MSA (see 

§ 600.305(c)(2)(v) of this proposed action). 

reviewed 5 years after implementation 

and at least every 7 years thereafter. See 

16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(1)(G). 

IV. Stocks That Require Conservation 

and Management 

The MSA provides for Federal fishery 

management authority in the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 16 

U.S.C. 1801(b)(1), and provides that 

each Council shall prepare an FMP for 

each fishery under its authority that 

requires conservation and management. 

Id. section 1852(h)(1). In recent years, 

NMFS has received multiple legal 

challenges regarding which stocks 

should or should not be managed under 

an MSA FMP. NMFS does not believe 

that MSA section 302(h)(1) on its face 

directs preparation of an FMP for all 

fisheries in the EEZ and other MSA 

provisions support this view. See, e.g., 

id. section 1856(a)(3)(A) (authorizing a 

State to regulate a fishing vessel outside 

the boundaries of the State in certain 

circumstances, including when there is 

no Federal FMP or other applicable 

Federal regulations), and id. section 

1881(a)(1)–(2) (authorizing information 

collection for purpose of ‘‘determining 

whether a fishery is in need of 

management.’’). Legislative history for 

section 302(h)(1) affirms that ‘‘Councils 

are not required to prepare FMPs for 

every fishery within their geographical 

areas of authority.’’ See House Rep. No. 

97–549, on insertion of language ‘‘in 

need of conservation and management’’ 

as part of the 1982 amendment of MSA 

reprinted in 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4339, 

(May 17, 1982). 

The question is how a Council should 

determine whether a fishery requires or 

is in need of conservation and 

management. The MSA and current NS 

guidelines indirectly touch upon this 

issue in several places, but NMFS 

believes that consolidating, 

streamlining, and clarifying guidance in 

the General section of the NS guidelines 

would be beneficial. NMFS believes that 

it is appropriate that guidance on which 

stocks need conservation and 

management should be contained 

separately from the 10 National 

Standard guidelines as it would be the 

basis for implementation of all the 

National Standards. 

MSA section 302(h)(1) and other 

related provisions refer to a ‘‘fishery’’ 

and ‘‘conservation and management.’’ A 

‘‘fishery’’ is ‘‘(A) 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 (B) any fishing for 

such stocks.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(13). The 

first part of the definition is nearly 

identical to the MSA’s definition for 

‘‘stock of fish’’—‘‘species, subspecies, 

geographical grouping, or other category 

of fish capable of management as a 

unit.’’ Id. section 1802(42). In other 

words, a ‘‘fishery’’ includes stocks of 

fish, as well as the people, vessels, gear, 

and other infrastructure that is designed 

to capture and process the stocks of fish. 

‘‘Conservation and management’’ 

includes ‘‘all of the rules, regulations, 

conditions, methods, and other 

measures (A) which are required to 

rebuild, restore, or maintain, and which 

are useful in rebuilding, restoring, or 

maintaining, any fishery resource and 

the marine environment; and (B) which 

are designed to assure that— (i) a supply 

of food and other products may be 

taken, and that recreational benefits may 

be obtained, on a continuing basis; (ii) 

irreversible or long-term adverse effects 

on fishery resources and the marine 

environment are avoided; and (iii) there 

will be a multiplicity of options 

available with respect to future uses of 

these resources.’’ Id. section 1802(5). 

When developing an FMP, a Council 

must, among other things, describe the 

fishery (e.g. species of fish involved) in 

the FMP. Id. section 1853(a)(2). An FMP 

must also be consistent with the 10 

National Standards, id. section 1851(a), 

and contain conservation and 

management measures that are 

‘‘necessary and appropriate for the 

conservation and management of the 

fishery to prevent overfishing and 

rebuild overfished stocks, and to 

protect, restore, and promote the longterm health and stability of the fishery.’’ 

Id. section 1853(a)(1)(A). 

The addition of MSA section 

303(a)(15), which requires that all FMPs 

establish mechanisms for specifying 

ACLs and AMs, led to the most recent 

revision of the NS1 guidelines in 2009 

(74 FR 3178, Jan. 16, 2009). The 2009 

NS1 guidelines interpreted this 

requirement to mean that stocks and 

stocks complexes ‘‘in the fishery’’ need 

ACLs and AMs. The 2009 NS1 

guidelines explained that as a default, 

all stocks in an FMP are considered ‘‘in 

the fishery’’ unless the Council 

identifies them as an ecosystem 

component (EC) species. FMPs are 

required to provide the mandatory 

measures described in MSA section 

303(a), including ACLs and AMs, for 

only those ‘‘stocks in the fishery.’’ 

Although NMFS’ interpretation has 

been that ‘‘stocks in the fishery’’ are in 

need of ‘‘conservation and 

management,’’ the NS1 guidelines do 

not specifically address the 

determination of whether a stock is in 

need of conservation and management. 

The NS3 Guidelines address 

structuring appropriate management 

units for stocks and stock complexes 

and instruct that the choice of a 

management unit depends on the focus 

of the FMP’s objectives, and may be 

organized around biological, geographic, 

economic, technical, social, or 

ecological perspectives. 50 CFR 

600.320(d)(1). The NS3 guidelines also 

state that a management unit may 

contain stocks for which data is not 

available to specify MSY and OY or to 

establish management measures, so that 

data on those stocks may be collected. 

The NS7 guidelines state that MSA 

requires Councils to prepare FMPs only 

for overfished fisheries and for other 

fisheries where regulation would serve 

some useful purpose and where the 

present or future benefits of regulation 

would justify the costs. 50 CFR 

600.340(b)(2). The NS7 Guidelines 

provide seven criteria for determining 

whether a fishery needs management 

through regulations implementing an 

FMP. Id. 

In this action, NMFS proposes a new 

section specifically regarding ‘‘stocks 

that require conservation and 

management’’ (see proposed 

§ 600.305(c)). Any stocks that are 

predominately caught in Federal waters 

and are overfished or subject to 

overfishing, or likely to become 

overfished or subject to overfishing, 

would be considered to require 

conservation and management and 

therefore must be included in an FMP 

(see proposed § 600.305(c)(1)). See 16 

U.S.C.1853(a)(1)(A) (requiring that 

FMPs contain conservation and 

management measures that are 

necessary ‘‘to prevent overfishing and 

rebuild overfished stocks’’). Proposed 

sections 600.305(c)(1)(i)–(x) set forth 

factors 1 to be considered in all other 

situations when determining a 

conservation and management need: 

(1) The stock is an important 

component of the marine environment. 

(2) The stock is caught by the fishery. 

(3) Whether an FMP can improve or 

maintain the condition of the stocks. 

(4) The stock is a target of a fishery. 

(5) The stock is important to 

commercial, recreational, or subsistence 

users. 

(6) The fishery is important to the 

Nation and to the regional economy. 

(7) The need to resolve competing 

interests and conflicts among user 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2789 

groups and whether an FMP can further 

that resolution. 

(8) The economic condition of a 

fishery and whether an FMP can 

produce more efficient utilization. 

(9) The needs of a developing fishery, 

and whether an FMP can foster orderly 

growth. 

(10) The extent to which the fishery 

could be or is already adequately 

managed by states, by state/Federal 

programs, by Federal regulations 

pursuant to other FMPs or international 

commissions, or by industry selfregulation, consistent with the policies 

and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. 

When considering adding a new stock 

to an FMP or keeping an existing stock 

within an FMP, Councils should 

prepare a thorough analysis of the 

factors, and any additional 

considerations that may be relevant to 

the particular stock. No single factor is 

dispositive, but Councils should 

consider weighting the factors as 

follows. Factors (i–iii) should be 

considered first, as they address 

maintaining a fishery resource and the 

marine environment. See section 

1802(5)(A). These factors weigh in favor 

of including a stock in an FMP. 

Councils should next consider factors 

(iv–ix), which set forth key economic, 

social, and other reasons contained 

within the MSA for an FMP action. See 

16 U.S.C. 1802(5)(B). Regardless of 

whether any of the first nine factors 

indicates a conservation and 

management need, a Council should 

consider factor (x) before deciding to 

include or maintain a stock in an FMP. 

In many circumstances, adequate 

management of a fishery by states, state/ 

Federal programs, or another Federal 

FMP would weigh heavily against a 

Federal FMP action. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(7); 1856(a)(3). In evaluating the 

above criteria, a Council should 

consider the specific circumstances of a 

fishery, based on the best scientific 

information available; to determine 

whether there are biological, economic, 

social and/or operational concerns that 

can be addressed by Federal 

management. 

For stocks that do not require 

conservation and management, 

consistent with the current NS1 

guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(d)(5)(iii), 

proposed § 600.305(c)(3) would allow 

councils to continue to include such 

stocks in FMPs as ecosystem component 

(EC) species to collect data, minimize 

bycatch and bycatch mortality 

consistent with NS9, protect their 

associated role in the ecosystem, or for 

other reasons. See also 16 U.S.C. 

1853(b)(12) (providing Councils the 

discretion to ‘‘include management 

measures in the plan to conserve target 

and non-target species and habitats, 

considering the variety of ecological 

factors affecting fishery populations’’). 

Consistent with the current NS1 

guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(d)(7), 

proposed § 600.305(c)(4) would 

continue to provide that, where stocks 

may be identified in more than one 

FMP, Councils should choose which 

FMP will be the primary FMP in which 

reference points for the stock are 

established. In other FMPs, the stock 

may be identified as ‘‘other managed 

stocks’’ and management measures that 

are consistent with the objectives of the 

primary FMP can be established. 

Proposed § 600.305(c)(5) provides that 

Councils should, periodically, review 

their FMPs and the best scientific 

information available and determine if 

stocks are appropriately identified and 

if the FMP is meeting the conservation 

and management needs of their 

fisheries. 

Because proposed § 600.305 

consolidates text from several NS 

guidelines provisions, NMFS would 

make the following edits for consistency 

or to eliminate duplication: 

• Move the definition of ‘‘target 

stock’’ from the current NS1 guidelines 

to the general definitions at proposed 

§ 600.305(d)(11), and remove the 

definition of ‘‘stock and stock 

complexes’’ at § 600.305(c)(12). 

• Remove the description of and use 

of the terms ‘‘in the fishery’’ and remove 

the criteria for ‘‘ecosystem component 

species’’ in the NS1 guidelines (see 

§ 600.310 of this proposed action). 

• Consistent with proposed 

§§ 600.305(c)(1)–(5), revise the NS1 

guidelines at proposed § 600.310(d)(1) 

to state that stocks in need of 

conservation and management must 

have ACLs, other reference points, and 

accountability measures; but that other 

stocks identified within an FMP (i.e., 

ecosystem component species and 

stocks primarily managed under another 

FMP) do not require these measures. 

• Revise the NS3 guidelines to 

specify that stocks in the ‘‘management 

unit’’ are considered to require 

conservation and management (see 

§ 600.320(d) of this proposed action). 

• Remove current NS3 guidelines text 

at § 600.320(d)(1)(i)–(vi) which provides 

some cursory examples of ways to 

organize a management unit because 

proposed § 600.305(c)(1) now sets forth 

the factors to consider when deciding 

whether stocks require conservation and 

management. 

• Revise current NS3 guidelines text 

at § 600.320(d)(2), which state that a 

management unit may contain, in 

addition to regulated species, stocks of 

fish which there is not enough 

information available to specify MSY 

and OY, or to establish management 

measures, so that data for one of these 

species may be collected under the 

FMP. The new guidelines would state 

that a management unit may contain 

stocks of fish for which there is not 

enough information available to specify 

MSY and OY or their proxies. Even if 

data are not available to specify MSY 

and OY or their proxies, that is not a 

reason to determine that a stock does 

not require conservation and 

management. 

• Remove § 600.340(b) of the current 

NS7 guidelines as the majority of that 

guidance has been captured in the 

description of factors to consider under 

proposed § 600.305(c). 

NMFS believes that the proposed 

revisions to § 600.305 and the NS1, NS3, 

and NS7 guidelines will not require 

Councils to revise their existing FMPs. 

NMFS is aware that Councils have 

identified stocks in their FMPs as 

‘‘management unit species’’ or ‘‘stocks 

in the fishery.’’ Councils can still 

continue to use those terms and NMFS 

presumes that the stocks that have been 

identified as ‘‘management unit 

species’’ or ‘‘stocks in the fishery’’ are 

stocks that are in need of conservation 

and management and are required to 

have ACLs, other reference points, and 

AMs as described in the proposed 

revisions to the NS1 guidelines (see 

§ 600.310(d)(1) of this proposed action) 

unless the two statutory exceptions 

apply (see § 600.310(h) of this proposed 

action). 

V. Data Limited Stocks 

Establishing ACLs for data-limited 

stocks can be challenging. In datalimited situations there remains a high 

degree of uncertainty in determining the 

appropriate catch level for the fishery, 

leading some to believe that ACLs for 

data-limited stocks are overly 

restrictive, and others to argue that they 

should be reduced further to limit the 

chance of overfishing. NMFS 

continually strives to advance the 

science that informs fisheries 

management. Over time, scientific 

information and stock assessment 

methods have improved, and NMFS has 

increased the number of stocks with 

stock assessments. However, NMFS 

acknowledges that the status of many 

stocks is unknown. Since passage of the 

ACL requirements, scientists have 

developed tools to evaluate and manage 

data-limited stocks. Some include catch 

based methods, depletion based 

methods, or abundance based methods 

(Carruthers et al. 2014). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2790 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

MSA section 303(a)(3) requires that 

FMPs assess and specify MSY. NMFS 

acknowledges that it may not be 

possible, based on the best scientific 

information available, to estimate MSY 

(as defined in the NS1 guidelines at 

§ 600.310(e)(1)(i)) or MSY based proxies 

for some stocks. In such instances, 

proposed § 600.310(e)(2)(ii) provides 

that when data are not available to 

specify status determination criteria 

(SDCs) based on MSY or MSY proxies, 

alternative types of SDCs that promote 

sustainability of the stock or stock 

complex can be used. NMFS proposes 

adding to the examples provided for 

circumstances that may not fit the 

standard approaches for establishing 

reference points pursuant to the NS1 

guidelines to address situations where 

data are not available to either set 

reference points based on MSY or MSY 

proxies, or manage to reference points 

based on MSY or MSY proxies (see 

§ 600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action). 

However, note that § 600.310(h)(2) does 

not provide an exemption from any 

statutory requirements, including the 

requirement to establish ACLs; rather, it 

provides flexibility in the application of 

the NS1 guidelines. NMFS notes that 

existing § 600.310(h)(3) describes that 

one of the limited circumstances that 

may not fit the standard approaches to 

specification of reference points is 

harvests from aquaculture operations 

(e.g., Gulf of Mexico Aquaculture FMP). 

VI. Stock Complexes and Indicator 

Stocks 

Stocks that require conservation and 

management can be grouped into stocks 

complexes and managed within a FMP. 

Stocks may be grouped into complexes 

for various reasons. For example, stock 

complexes may be useful tools when 

stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot 

be targeted independent of one another, 

when there is insufficient data to 

measure a stock’s status relative to its 

SDC, or when it is not feasible for 

fishermen to distinguish individual 

stocks among their catch. In 2009, the 

NS1 guidelines defined stock complexes 

to mean 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. 50 CFR 

600.310(d)(8). However, this definition 

potentially limits the applicability of 

stock complexes in many of the 

circumstances in which they may be 

most useful, such as situations where 

stocks in a multispecies fishery cannot 

be targeted independent of one another, 

or when it is not feasible for fishermen 

to distinguish individual stocks among 

their catch. Under these circumstances, 

stock complexes may not have similar 

life histories and vulnerabilities. To 

resolve this issue, NMFS is proposing to 

define stock complex more generally as 

a tool to manage groups of stocks within 

a FMP (see § 600.310(d)(2) of this 

proposed action) with consideration of 

geographic distribution, life history 

characteristics, and vulnerabilities to 

fishing pressure such that the impact of 

management actions on the stocks is 

similar (see § 600.310(d)(2)(i) of this 

proposed action). 

Stock complexes are often created 

when there is not enough information to 

set reference points at the individual 

stock level. Therefore, the status of 

individual stocks within a complex is 

generally unknown. The current NS1 

guidelines note that stock complexes 

can be comprised of many different 

combinations of indicator stocks and 

other stocks. In practice, few stock 

complexes are managed with indicator 

stocks. One reason for the dearth of 

indicator stocks is that, once a stock 

within a complex is assessed, it is often 

taken out of the complex and managed 

separately, rather than serving as the 

indicator for the complex. The current 

NS1 guidelines, while endorsing the use 

of indicator stocks, may be 

inadvertently contributing to the 

removal of assessed stocks from 

complexes by stating that MSY should 

be estimated on a stock-by-stock basis, 

whenever possible. §§ 600.310(d)(8) and 

(e)(1)(iii). To encourage the use of 

indicator stocks in stock complexes, 

NMFS is proposing to delete the aforementioned text in §§ 600.310(d)(8) and 

(e)(1)(iii). The proposed NS1 guidelines 

state that, where practicable, stock 

complexes should be comprised of one 

or more indicator stocks, each of which 

has SDC and ACLs (see 

§ 600.310(d)(2)(ii)(B) of the proposed 

rule). These revisions are intended to 

reduce the practice of removing a stock 

from a complex once it has been 

assessed, so that the assessed stock can 

be used as an indicator for the complex, 

if it is practicable to do so. The revisions 

also help alleviate some of the 

discontinuities in how data-limited 

stock complexes are managed compared 

to data-rich multi-species fisheries. In 

mixed-stock fisheries, biological 

reference points are often specified for 

several of the stocks within the fishery 

and management measures are 

developed to prevent overfishing of 

each stock. Management measures for 

stocks that have lower productivities 

will restrict fishing effort for the overall 

mixed-stock fishery to some extent. 

However, in stock complex management 

the status of stocks within a complex is 

generally unknown and complexes often 

lack indicator species. Therefore, it 

possible that stocks that have lower 

productivities in the complex may 

experience occasional overfishing, since 

the status of these stocks are unknown. 

Encouraging the use of indicator species 

will likely reduce the probability that 

stocks within the complex could 

experience overfishing or become 

overfished. This is because the use of an 

indicator enhances the ability to discern 

the status of the complex, especially if 

the complex is of similar geographic 

distribution, life history, and 

vulnerabilities to the fishery such that 

the impact of management actions on 

the stocks is similar. 

VII. Aggregate Maximum Sustainable 

Yield (MSY) Estimates 

MSA section 303(a)(3) requires that 

each FMP include an estimate of MSY 

and OY for the fishery. The current NS1 

guidelines do not provide guidance on 

describing MSY at the fishery level, but 

encourage specifying MSY at the stock 

level, while allowing it to be set for 

stock complexes. The current NS1 

guidelines state that OY can be specified 

for a stock, stock complex, or fishery. In 

practice, Councils typically set MSY 

and other reference points for 

individual stocks when the data is 

available to do so. In data-limited 

situations, when it is not possible to 

specify single species reference points, 

stocks are often grouped into 

complexes. 

A growing body of literature on 

ecosystem-based fisheries management 

has emphasized the importance of 

accounting for species interactions and 

environmental variability within 

fisheries management. Councils are 

increasingly working toward developing 

ecosystem-based fisheries management 

programs. These ecosystem-based 

considerations can be incorporated in a 

number of ways, including single 

species stock assessments and models 

that estimate MSY for an aggregate 

group of stocks. The phrase ‘‘aggregate 

group of stocks’’ refers to a group of 

stocks, such as: a stock complex; all of 

the stocks caught within a fishery; or 

some sub-component of a fishery. To 

further facilitate the Councils’ use of 

ecosystem approaches to management, 

the proposed revisions to the NS1 

guidelines introduce the concept of 

aggregate MSY estimates and describe 

how the concept can be used as an 

optional tool in fisheries management. 

In this action, NMFS would revise 

§ 600.310(e)(1) to state that MSY may be 

specified for the fishery as a whole. 

Proposed § 600.310(e)(1)(iv) further 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2791 

provides that estimating aggregate level 

MSY for a group of stocks can be done 

using models that account for multispecies interactions, composite 

properties for a group of similar species, 

common biomass (energy) flow and 

production patterns, or other relevant 

factors. In addition, NMFS proposes 

adding a paragraph to the OY section of 

the NS1 guidelines to note that 

aggregate level MSY estimates can be 

used as a basis for specifying OY for a 

fishery (see § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(C) of this 

proposed action). When aggregate level 

MSY is estimated, single stock MSY 

estimates can be used to inform single 

stock management. For example, OY 

could be specified for a fishery, while 

other reference points are specified for 

individual stocks in order to prevent 

overfishing on each stock within the 

fishery. Lastly, NMFS proposes to 

encourage the incorporation of 

environmental information into stock 

assessments by noting that 

environmental information (e.g., 

salinity, temperature), in addition to 

ecological information (e.g., predatorprey interactions), should be taken into 

account, to the extent practicable, when 

assessing stocks and specifying MSY 

(see § 600.310(e)(1)(v)(C) of this 

proposed action). 

VIII. Developing a Definition for 

‘‘Depleted’’ 

The MSA defines the terms overfished 

and overfishing together as ‘‘a rate or 

level of fishing mortality that 

jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to 

produce the MSY on a continuing 

basis.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(34). The NS1 

guidelines define overfishing and 

overfished separately, where the term 

‘‘overfishing’’ refers to the fishing 

mortality rate or total catch, and the 

term ‘‘overfished’’ refers to a biomass 

condition. 50 CFR 600.310(e)(2)(i)(B) 

and (E). The NS1 overfished definition, 

unlike the statutory definition, gives no 

consideration to the ‘‘rate or level of 

fishing mortality’’ when determining if 

a stock is overfished. Rather the criteria 

to determine an overfished status, called 

the minimum stock size threshold 

(MSST), is defined as the level of 

biomass below which the stock or stock 

complex is considered to be overfished. 

Therefore, a stock may be determined to 

be overfished when overfishing has not 

occurred. Stakeholders have noted that 

the term ‘‘overfished’’ implies that 

fishing is the sole cause for a decline in 

stock biomass, when factors such as 

habitat and other environmental 

conditions may bear greater 

responsibility for the stock’s biomass 

decline. Similarly, the 2013 NRC report 

recognized that the rate at which a fish 

stock rebuilds depends on ecological 

and other environmental conditions 

such as climate change, in addition to 

the fishing-induced mortality. However, 

separating out the impacts of 

environmental change from the impacts 

of fishing on a stock is a difficult task. 

To address these concerns, NMFS 

proposes adding the term ‘‘depleted’’ to 

the NS1 guidelines to describe those 

stocks whose biomass has declined as a 

result of habitat and other 

environmental conditions, as opposed 

to fishing pressure. The proposed 

revision to the guidelines state that an 

overfished stock or stock complex is 

considered depleted when it has not 

experienced overfishing at any point 

over a period of two generation times of 

the stock and its biomass has declined 

below MSST, or when a rebuilding 

stock or stock complex has reached its 

targeted time to rebuild and the stock’s 

biomass has shown no significant signs 

of growth despite being fished at or 

below catch levels that are consistent 

with the rebuilding plan throughout that 

period (see § 600.310(e)(2)(i)(F) of this 

proposed action). The time periods 

chosen (i.e., two generation times and 

targeted time to rebuild) were chosen 

because: (1) They will scale with the 

productivity of the stock rather than 

being a fixed time period that is applied 

to all stocks, and (2) they are of a 

sufficient time period to allow fisheries 

scientists to easily separate out the 

impacts of environmental change from 

the impacts of fishing on a stock, given 

the requirements of not overfishing or 

exceeding catch levels that are 

consistent with the rebuilding plan 

during those time periods. Rebuilding 

plans would still be required for 

depleted stocks and Councils could 

consider additional measures for these 

stocks such as a re-evaluation of their 

SDCs to determine if they are 

representative of the current 

environmental conditions, restoration of 

habitat, identification of research 

priorities, or partnerships with other 

agencies to address non-fishing related 

impacts (see § 600.310(j)(6) of this 

proposed action). 

Additionally, NMFS proposes minor 

revisions to the definitions of 

‘‘overfished’’ and ‘‘MSST’’ to improve 

clarity and reduce redundancy, and to 

clearly show that the MSST is a 

reference point used to determine if a 

stock is overfished (see 

§ 600.310(e)(2)(i)(G) of this proposed 

action). These revisions together will 

not result in any change to how the 

terms ‘overfished’ and ‘MSST’ are used; 

the revisions are proposed only to 

improve clarity in the definitions. 

IX. Developing an Alternative 

Definition of Overfishing To Include a 

Multi-Year Approach 

The MSA defines ‘‘overfishing’’ as a 

‘‘rate or level of fishing mortality that 

jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to 

produce the MSY on a continuing 

basis.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(34). The MSA 

does not specify a timeframe for 

determining overfishing, but the current 

NS1 guidelines state that overfishing 

should be determined by comparing 

annual rates of fishing mortality (F) to 

the maximum fishing mortality 

threshold (MFMT) or annual catch to 

the overfishing limit (OFL). 50 CFR 

600.310(e)(2)(i)(B)–(C). In either case, 

under the current guidelines, 

overfishing determinations are made for 

the most recent year for which there is 

information. For example, if the F-based 

approach is used, the last available year 

of data in a stock assessment will be 

used to determine whether a stock will 

be declared subject to overfishing. 

NMFS first adopted an annual 

approach to overfishing in its 1998 

revision to the NS Guidelines. See 63 FR 

24212, May 1, 1998. In those revisions, 

NMFS required Councils to establish 

status determination criteria for 

determining overfishing; in particular, 

NMFS required the establishment of a 

MFMT. Fishing in excess of the MFMT 

for a period of 1 or more years would 

constitute overfishing (63 FR 24230). 

Prior to these revisions, NMFS had 

deliberately chosen not to ‘‘mandate a 

particular form for all specific 

overfishing definitions,’’ leaving it to 

the discretion of the Councils to decide 

how to determine if overfishing was 

occurring. See 54 FR 30826, 30829 

(response to comment 7), July 24, 1989. 

NMFS based the decision to take a more 

prescriptive approach in 1998 on the 

legislative changes made by Congress in 

the 1996 amendments to the MSA, 

which NMFS viewed as changing the 

statute’s emphasis on and timeframe for 

addressing overfishing. See 63 FR 24215 

(response to comment 2), May 1, 1998. 

When Congress amended the MSA in 

2007 to add new ACL and AM 

requirements, NMFS revised its 

requirements for SDCs, providing the 

option to Councils to either compare 

annual fishing mortality rates against 

the MFMT or the annual level of catch 

against the OFL. 50 CFR 

600.310(e)(2)(i)(B)–(C); see also 74 FR 

3192 (response to comment 27), Jan. 16, 

2009, (describing relative advantages of 

each methodology). 

These current methods for 

determining overfishing do not consider 

the extent to which F exceeded the 

MFMT or catch exceeded the OFL. For 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2792 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2The proposed rule does not revise the regulatory 

text at § 600.310(e)(3)(i)(B) (describing achievement 

of OY) except for minor grammatical corrections. 

many stocks, a small amount of fishing 

effort above MFMT or catch in excess of 

OFL in a single year may not jeopardize 

the stocks’ ability to produce MSY over 

the long term, though for other stocks a 

small overage may be significant. 

Another concern with the current 

approach of comparing F to MFMT, is 

that the terminal year’s estimate of F in 

a stock assessment is often more 

uncertain than the estimates of F in 

prior years (NRC 1998). In some cases, 

subsequent assessments have revised 

the previous assessment’s terminal 

year’s estimate of F to a much greater 

degree than the prior years’ estimates of 

F. 

To address this issue, NMFS is 

proposing to give Councils the option to 

use a method for determining the 

overfishing status of a stock that is 

based on a multi-year approach (that 

may not exceed 3 years) that examines 

whether a stock’s ability to produce 

MSY over the long term has been 

jeopardized (see § 600.310(e)(2)(ii)(A) of 

the proposed action). The proposed 

revisions to the NS1 guidelines would 

still allow Councils to have overfishing 

SDCs that are based on single year 

comparisons of F to MFMT or catch to 

OFL. A Council may develop 

overfishing SDCs that use a multi-year 

approach, so long as it provides a 

comprehensive analysis based on the 

best scientific information available that 

supports that the approach will not 

jeopardize the capacity of the fishery to 

produce the MSY on a continuing basis. 

The rationale for choosing 3 years as a 

maximum, versus some shorter or 

longer time period, was based on the 

fact that many stocks (57 percent) are 

assessed every 1, 2, or 3 years. Thus it 

is NMFS’s assumption that using a 2- or 

3-year time period will be sufficiently 

long as to capture the recent impacts of 

fishing on a stock and help smooth out 

retrospective bias in our understanding 

of stock status. Additionally, using a 2- 

or 3-year time period will dampen the 

effects of outliers within the data and 

help provide a more consistent 

determination of when the capacity of 

the stock to produce MSY on a 

continuing basis has been jeopardized. 

A single year’s data point may not 

reflect the overall status of the stock. 

Were Councils to use a longer time 

period, there could be a longer delay 

between exceeding limit reference 

points and a subsequent management 

response, which could jeopardize the 

stocks ability to produce MSY on a 

continuing basis. 

Although the current approach to 

single year overfishing determinations 

has been in place since 1998 and has the 

benefit of simplicity in calculation and 

use, NMFS believes that multi-year 

overfishing SDCs can, in appropriate 

cases, be used effectively to protect the 

stock while providing stability to the 

fishery. Multi-year overfishing SDCs, if 

used, would be based on the best 

scientific information available and 

would not impact the timeliness of 

Council and agency response to any 

overfishing. ACL and AM mechanisms 

are in place for all fisheries, and they 

would continue to constrain fishing 

mortality on an annual basis. The multiyear approach would only be used for 

overfishing determinations, where the 

focus appropriately is on the impact of 

fishing over a set period of time and the 

capacity of the stock to produce MSY. 

X. Revising Optimum Yield (OY) 

Guidance 

The MSA defines OY as an ‘‘amount 

of fish which: (A) 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; (B) 

is prescribed as such on the basis of the 

maximum sustainable yield from the 

fishery, as reduced by any relevant 

economic, social, or ecological factor; 

and (C) in the case of an overfished 

fishery, provides for rebuilding to a 

level consistent with producing the 

maximum sustainable yield in such 

fishery.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1802(33). Setting and 

describing OY continues to be a 

challenge for fishery managers. OY is 

specified in several different ways by 

Councils (e.g., the catch corresponding 

to 75 percent of Fmsy, all catch harvested 

pursuant to the FMP, OY is less than or 

equal to ABC, etc.), and the economic, 

social, and ecological factors required to 

be considered in the specification of OY 

are often not explicitly described by 

Councils. The proposed revisions to the 

NS1 guidelines (see § 600.305(e)(3) of 

this proposed action) are intended to 

provide greater clarity and guidance to 

the Councils in how to determine and 

specify OY. Once specified, OY may be 

achieved by different management 

programs.2

Prior to the requirement for ACLs, the 

concept of treating OY as a target was 

prominent in fisheries management. The 

Sustainable Fisheries Act, passed in 

1996, revised the definition of OY to its 

current definition—notably these 

revisions required that OY can only be 

reduced from MSY upon consideration 

of any relevant economic, social or 

ecological factors. When NMFS revised 

the NS1 guidelines in 1998 (63 FR 

24212, May 1, 1998), OY was described 

as a target reference point which should 

be set safely below limit reference 

points, and preference was placed on 

specifying OY in terms of numbers or 

weight of fish. Councils were 

encouraged to specify OY control rules, 

and Restrepo et al. (1998) recommended 

a default OY control rule of fishing at 

75 percent of FMSY. After passage of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006, NMFS 

revised the NS1 guidelines to provide 

guidance on implementing ACLs (74 FR 

3178, Jan. 16, 2009). With the 

requirement for setting OFL, ABC, and 

ACLs in fisheries, the concept of 

specifying OY as an annual target 

became less relevant. However, OY 

remains a key concept and requirement 

of the MSA, and NMFS believes that 

further revisions to the NS1 guidelines 

may assist Councils in better specifying 

and integrating OY into their 

management regimes. 

NMFS received many comments in 

response to the ANPR requesting that 

NMFS provide further guidance to the 

Councils on addressing the economic, 

social, and ecological factors used in 

determining OY. NMFS believes that 

one impediment to Councils addressing 

these factors is the perception that the 

Councils must quantify their analysis of 

these factors. Such an analysis may not 

be possible in all cases, so NMFS 

proposes revising § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(A) 

to provide that where it is not possible 

to specify OY quantitatively, Councils 

may instead provide a qualitative 

description of OY that explains how OY 

accounts for the economic, ecological, 

and social factors that are important to 

the fishery. 

In the comments received on the NS1 

ANPR, several stakeholders asked for 

clarification of the relationship of OY to 

the ACL framework—a relationship that 

is not discussed in the current 

guidelines. In response to these 

comments, proposed § 600.310(f)(4)(iv) 

of the NS1 guidelines includes a new 

explanation of the relationship between 

OY and the ACL framework. The dual 

goals of NS1 are to prevent overfishing 

and achieve OY on a continuing basis. 

The ABC is an upper limit on catch and 

is designed to prevent overfishing. ACLs 

(or ACTs if used) can be reduced from 

ABC based upon OY considerations for 

the fishery. Additionally, economic, 

social, or ecological trade-offs may be 

evaluated when determining the risk 

policy for an ABC control rule. 

While OY is a long-term average 

amount of desired yield, there is, for 

each year, an amount of fish that is 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2793 

consistent with achieving the long-term 

OY. A Council can choose to express 

OY on an annual basis, in which case 

the FMP or FMP amendment should 

indicate that the OY is an ‘‘annual OY.’’ 

An annual OY cannot exceed the ACL. 

If there is a desire to obtain a yield that 

is higher than the ACL, then a Council 

needs to determine if a change in the 

management regime (e.g., improved data 

collection to reduce scientific and 

management uncertainty, minimized 

bycatch in mixed-stock fisheries, etc.) is 

needed in order to increase yield. 

NMFS proposes to remove current 

§ 600.310(e)(3)(v)(C) (which states that 

all catch must be counted against OY, 

including that resulting from bycatch, 

scientific research, and all fishing 

activities) and instead incorporate the 

concept within § 600.310(e)(2)(ii)(C) of 

the proposed action by stating that 

where practicable, all sources of 

mortality should be accounted for in the 

evaluation of stock status. The current 

language implies that catch accounting 

occurs at the level of OY, while in 

practice it typically occurs at the level 

of the ACL. However, the concept of 

accounting for all sources of mortality is 

critical to fisheries management; 

therefore NMFS proposes to retain the 

concept but incorporate it within the 

guidance on SDCs. NMFS uses the term 

‘‘where practicable’’ because it 

recognizes that data on scientific 

research catch may not always be 

available. To the extent that data is 

available on scientific research catch, it 

should be accounted for within the 

system of reference points. For example, 

it could be accounted for within stock 

assessments, as a set-aside within the 

ACL framework, or by other methods. 

NMFS is also proposing minor 

revisions and consolidations of 

redundant guidance. To remove 

repetition and improve clarity, NMFS 

proposes merging the guidance on 

determining the greatest benefits to the 

Nation and the considerations for 

economic, ecological, and social (EES) 

factors (currently contained in 

§ 600.310(e)(3)(ii)–(iv)) together into a 

paragraph on assessing OY (see 

§ 600.310(e)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of the 

proposed action). Both are important for 

assessing OY. Additionally, NMFS 

proposes minor revisions to the 

guidance on the total allowable level of 

foreign fishing and domestic annual 

harvest at § 600.310(e)(3)(v)(D) and (H) 

to improve clarity and consolidate it 

with the rest of the guidance on foreign 

fishing (see § 600.310(e)(3)(v)(A) and (B) 

of this proposed action). NMFS also 

proposes removing § 600.310(e)(3)(v)(G) 

(stating that there should be a 

mechanism in the FMP for periodic 

reassessment of OY), and instead 

explain in proposed § 600.310(e)(3)(iii) 

that, consistent with MSA section 

302(h)(5), the assessment and 

specification of OY should be reviewed 

on a continuing basis, so that it is 

responsive to the changing 

circumstances in the fishery. Lastly, 

NMFS proposes that for internationally 

managed stocks, fishing levels that are 

agreed upon by the U.S. at the 

international level are consistent with 

achieving OY (see § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(D) 

of this proposed action). 

XI. Acceptable Biological Catch and 

Annual Catch Limit Guidance 

In general, NMFS proposes revisions 

to the guidance regarding ABC in 

section § 600.310(f) to minimize 

redundancy and improve clarity. For 

example, the ABC control rule 

(§ 600.310(f)(4)) was moved forward in 

the guidelines (see § 600.310(f)(2) of this 

proposed action) so that the guidance on 

ABC control rules is provided before the 

guidance on specifying ABC, and 

statements about providing a proxy for 

the uncertainty in estimate of MSY 

(§ 600.310(e)(1)(v)) was moved to the 

ABC control rule section of the 

guidelines to consolidate guidance on 

accounting for uncertainty (see 

§ 600.310(f)(2)(ii) of this proposed 

action). More substantial revisions to 

the ABC guidance are listed below. 

Definitions 

NMFS proposes to modify the 

definition of the annual catch limit 

(ACL) to improve clarity. The ACL is 

currently defined as the level of annual 

catch of a stock or stock complex that 

serves as a basis for invoking AMs. ACL 

cannot exceed the ABC, but may be 

divided into sector-ACLs. 50 CFR 

600.310(f)(2)(iv). This definition, while 

accurate, failed to include reference to 

the fact that an ACL is a limit on the 

total annual catch for a stock or stock 

complex. NMFS proposes clarifying that 

an ACL is a limit on the total annual 

catch for a stock or stock complex, 

which cannot exceed the ABC, that 

serves as the basis for invoking AMs. An 

ACL may be divided into sector-ACLs 

(see § 600.310(f)(1)(iii) of this proposed 

action). 

NMFS also proposes adding three 

new definitions for the following terms: 

control rule, management uncertainty, 

and scientific uncertainty (see 

§ 600.310(f)(1)(iv)–(vi) of this proposed 

action). These terms are currently used 

throughout the guidelines, but were 

never separately defined. To reduce 

redundancy, NMFS proposes deleting 

the ABC control rule and ACT control 

rule definitions, since these definitions 

were very similar to the definitions of 

ABC and ACT, and there is a more 

general definition of control rule 

provided. Lastly, NMFS is proposing to 

move the definition of ‘‘ACT’’ to 

§ 600.310 (g)(4) of this proposed rule, 

because ACTs are a type of AM, and 

thus better suited in the AMs section of 

the guidelines. 

Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Risk 

Policy 

Section 302(g)(1)(B) of the MSA states 

that the Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC) for each Council shall 

provide its Council with ongoing 

scientific advice for fishery management 

decisions, including recommendations 

for ABC. 16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(B). In 

2009, the NS1 guidelines described ABC 

as the level of a stock or stock complex’s 

annual catch that accounts for the 

scientific uncertainty in the estimate of 

the overfishing limit and any other 

scientific uncertainty, and should be 

specified based on the ABC control rule. 

When these provisions began to be 

implemented in 2009, Councils were 

uncertain as to whether or not the SSC 

could specify the ABC without input 

from the Council on its risk preferences. 

At that time, NMFS referred Councils 

and their SSCs to the response to 

comments section of the 2009 final 

guidelines, which noted that the ‘‘SSC 

must recommend an ABC to the Council 

after the Council advises the SSC what 

would be the acceptable probability that 

a catch equal to the ABC would result 

in overfishing. This risk policy is part of 

the required ABC control rule.’’ 74 FR 

at 3191–92 (response to comment 42), 

Jan. 16, 2009. NMFS also addressed this 

issue within its NS1 guidelines 

frequently asked questions document, 

which was published online (http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/

national_standards/ns1_

resources.html). 

When the NS1 provisions began to be 

implemented in 2009, Councils were 

interested in using alternative methods 

to specify ABC, which were not based 

on ‘‘the probability that an actual catch 

equal to the stock’s ABC would result in 

overfishing’’ even though such an 

approach could be calculated. In 

particular, in their comment to the NS1 

ANPR, the North Pacific Council 

expressed interest in using a decision 

theoretic approach, which is similar in 

concept but is not the same as the 

probabilistic approach (Thompson 

2011). Thompson (2011) suggests that 

the use of a decision theoretic approach 

may actually be more effective at 

accounting for scientific uncertainty 

than the recommended probabilistic 

approach. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2794 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

To address the above issues, NMFS is 

proposing revisions to existing guidance 

on ABC control rules to state that the 

Council’s risk policy could be based, on 

an acceptable probability (at least 50 

percent) that catch equal to the stock’s 

ABC will not result in overfishing, but 

other appropriate methods can be used. 

When determining the risk policy, 

Councils could consider the economic, 

social, and ecological trade-offs between 

being more or less risk averse. (See 

§ 600.310(f)(2)(i) of this proposed 

action.) References to the Council’s risk 

policy were also included in the 

definition of ABC (see 

§ 600.310(f)(1)(ii)). 

Phase-In ABC Control Rules 

In practice, the management system 

described in the NS1 guidelines has led 

managers to adjust ABCs and ACLs in 

lock-step with assessment results 

through the use of control rules. A 

manager’s understanding about the 

status of a stock may change from one 

assessment to another, but some of that 

change could be due to scientific 

uncertainty. Scientific uncertainty, 

particularly regarding the data from the 

most recent years within the 

assessment, can produce perceived 

fluctuations in stock abundance that do 

not match the actual, but unknown, 

status of the stock (NRC 1998). In the 

time period between stock assessments, 

Councils often hold ACLs constant 

because, absent stock forecasts, 

information is lacking on which to 

justify changes to the ACL. The result is 

that an ACL could be left unchanged for 

several years when there is no 

assessment update, but upon 

completion of a new assessment, 

reference points could change 

dramatically (Methot 2014). This type of 

dramatic change could be the result of 

a changed understanding of the stock or 

due to a change in the level of scientific 

uncertainty; it may be extremely 

difficult to parse the cause of such 

changes. 

Making large reductions in catch 

limits to prevent overfishing may cause 

negative short-term impacts on fishery 

participants, while large increases in 

catch limits due to a favorable 

assessment result may have negative 

short-term impacts by flooding markets 

and reducing profitability. Patrick et al. 

(2013) has also shown that management 

uncertainty (i.e., the inability of 

managers to control catch) increases 

when quotas vary substantially (i.e., >20 

percent) from year to year. The ability 

to make ACL adjustments that provide 

more stability to fishing participants, yet 

do not jeopardize the capacity of the 

stock or stock complex to produce MSY 

on a continuing basis, would be useful 

to Councils. 

NMFS proposes revising the NS1 

guidelines to allow Councils to develop 

an ABC control rule that would phase 

in changes to the ABC over a period of 

time not to exceed 3 years, so long as 

overfishing is prevented (see § 600.310 

(f)(2)(ii)(A) of this action). The rationale 

for choosing 3 years is similar to that 

described in Section IX of this 

preamble. For example, choosing a 

shorter time frame may not be that 

helpful in stabilizing catches, while a 

longer time frame that spans multiple 

stock assessments does not seem logical 

or transparent. 

Phase-in approaches to management 

are currently being used successfully 

elsewhere in the world. For example, 

the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) currently adjusts its 

quotas according to a ‘‘slow up/full 

down’’ policy. Under IPHC policy, 1/3 

of the indicated annual increases are 

taken and 100 percent of decreases are 

taken (Hare and Clark 2008, Hare 2011). 

Similarly, multi-annual plans for some 

European Union marine fisheries limit 

annual change in catch quota to 15 

percent (Marchal et al. 2009). When 

fishing effort needs to be reduced in the 

fishery, using a phase-in approach will 

likely result in the use of a less risk 

averse ABC control rule; whereas, when 

fishing effort can be increased in the 

fishery, a phase-in approach will likely 

result in a more risk averse ABC control 

rule. For example, if a 15 percent 

reduction is needed to set the ABC at 

the Council’s preferred level of risk (i.e., 

using the Council’s regular ABC control 

rule), using the phase-in control rule, a 

Council could incrementally reduce the 

ABC by 5 percent each year over a 

period of 3 years, and still prevent 

overfishing. Alternatively if a 15 percent 

increase is allowed, using the phase-in 

control rule a Council could 

incrementally increase the ABC by 5 

percent each year over a period of 3 

years. To ensure that phase-in ABC 

control rules do not lead to overfishing, 

NMFS also proposes that Councils must 

provide a comprehensive analysis of the 

control rules and articulate within an 

FMP or FMP amendment when a phasein ABC control rule can and cannot be 

used and demonstrate how the control 

rule prevents overfishing (see § 600.310 

(f)(2)(ii) of this action). 

Carry-Over ABC Control Rules 

The term carry-over is often used in 

the context of catch share programs, 

where unused allocation from one year 

can be carried over to the next. 

Historically, carry-over provisions have 

allowed fishermen to carry over a 

portion of the quota they had available 

at the end of the year. Carry-over 

provisions can reduce the likelihood 

that quotas are exceeded by minimizing 

incentives to catch every last pound. 

Similarly, carry-over provisions can 

relieve pressure on fishermen to fish in 

potentially unsafe conditions to ensure 

full utilization of quota. The amount of 

carry-over historically allowed has been 

relatively small compared to the total 

ACL, and could well be offset, in a 

typical year, with under-harvest by 

other fishermen. 

Some Councils have expressed 

interest in carrying over significant 

levels of catch that could result in the 

previously specified ACL and in some 

cases the ABC being exceeded. The NS1 

guidelines currently do not provide any 

guidance regarding carry-over. In 

Conservation Law Foundation v. 

Pritzker, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia found that 

Framework 50 of the Northeast 

Multispecies FMP violated the MSA by 

allowing sectors to carry over unused 

catch in an amount that would exceed 

the SSC’s recommendation of ABC for 

several stocks. The court held that MSA 

section 302(h)(6) requires that carryover 

plus ACLs cannot exceed a stock’s 

specified ABC. Consistent with this 

court decision, NMFS proposes revising 

the NS1 guidelines at proposed 

§ 600.310(f)(2)(ii)(B) to state that an ABC 

control rule may include provisions for 

carry-over of some of the unused 

portion of the ACL from one year to 

increase the ABC for the next year, 

based on increased stock abundance 

resulting from the fishery harvesting 

less than the full ACL. The resulting 

ABC recommended by the SSC must 

prevent overfishing and consider 

scientific uncertainty consistent with 

the Council’s risk policy. In cases where 

an ACL has been reduced from the ABC, 

carry-over provisions may not require 

the ABC to be re-specified if the ACL 

can be adjusted upward so that it is 

equal to or below the existing ABC. Like 

phase-in control rules, to ensure that 

carry-over ABC control rules do not lead 

to overfishing, NMFS proposes that 

Councils must provide a comprehensive 

analysis and articulate within an FMP 

or FMP amendment when a carry-over 

ABC control rule can and cannot be 

used and demonstrate how the control 

rule prevents overfishing (see 

§ 600.310(f)(2)(ii) of this proposed 

action). 

XII. Accountability Measures 

NMFS proposes minor revisions to 

consolidate and clarify the guidance on 

accountability measures (see 

§ 600.310(g) of this proposed action). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2795 

NMFS proposes moving the guidance on 

ACT and ACT control rules from current 

paragraph (f) into the section of the 

guidelines that provides guidance on 

accountability measures (see 

§ 600.310(g)(4) of this proposed action), 

as ACTs and ACT control rules are types 

of accountability measures. NMFS is 

also proposing to simplify the guidance 

on ACT control rules, as they are an 

optional tool that managers can use. 

Additionally, NMFS is moving the 

description of management uncertainty 

out of the description of the ACT 

control rule and other sections of the 

guidelines (§ 600.310(f)(1) and (f)(6)(i)) 

into a definition of management 

uncertainty (see § 600.310(f)(1)(v) of this 

proposed action). Consistent with the 

current NS1 guidelines, some Councils 

have chosen to account for management 

uncertainty when setting ACLs. NMFS 

acknowledges and encourages this 

practice by adding a sentence in 

proposed § 600.310(f)(4) stating that if 

ACT is not used, management 

uncertainty should be accounted for in 

the ACL. 

Additionally, NMFS proposes moving 

the guidance on AMs that is currently 

contained in § 600.310(h)(1) into 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of the NS1 

guidelines. Specifically, NMFS proposes 

adding ‘‘if sector-ACLs are used, sectorAMs should also be specified’’ to 

§ 600.310(f)(4)(ii) of this proposed 

action. This concept is currently in 

§ 600.310(h)(1)(iv) and was moved into 

the discussion of sector-ACLs to 

improve clarity. NMFS also proposes to 

add ‘‘the FMP should identify what 

sources of data will be used to 

implement AMs (e.g., inseason data, 

annual catch compared to the ACL, or 

multi-year averaging approach)’’ into 

the introductory paragraph on AMs (see 

§ 600.310(g)(1) of this proposed action). 

This concept is currently in 

§ 600.310(h)(1)(iii) and was moved into 

the discussion on AMs to consolidate 

the guidance on AMs. 

NMFS also proposes to consolidate 

the guidance regarding the ACL 

performance standard from current 

§§ 600.310(g)(3) and (g)(4) into one 

section (see § 600.310(g)(7) of this 

proposed action). However, the 

guidance regarding the performance 

standard remains the same; if catch 

exceeds the ACL for a given stock or 

stock complex more than once in the 

last four years, the system of ACLs and 

AMs should be reevaluated, and 

modified if necessary to improve its 

performance and effectiveness. 

NMFS also proposes to clarify in the 

guidance for AMs when ACL is 

exceeded that the type of AM chosen by 

a Council will likely vary depending on 

the sector of the fishery, status of the 

stock, the degree of the overage, 

recruitment patterns of the stock, or 

other pertinent information (see 

§ 600.310(g)(3) of this proposed action). 

For example, some stocks have highly 

variable recruitment and when 

environmental conditions are favorable, 

the catches may exceed the ACL 

because the abundance of the stock is 

higher than anticipated. When deciding 

on the appropriate AM, Councils could 

consider if higher than expected 

recruitment played a role in catches 

exceeding the ACL. Another example of 

how the type of AM may vary is that a 

Council may choose to use a more 

stringent AM as the biomass of the stock 

declines. 

Lastly, within the guidance on AMs 

for when the ACL is exceeded, NMFS 

proposes that, if an ACL is set equal to 

zero and the AM for the fishery is a 

closure that prohibits fishing for a stock, 

additional AMs are not required if (1) 

only small amounts of catch or bycatch 

occur, and (2) that catch or bycatch is 

unlikely to result in overfishing (see 

§ 600.310(g)(3) of this proposed action). 

Under these circumstances, NMFS 

believes that a closure that prohibits 

fishing for a stock is an adequate AM for 

a fishery, and in some cases, it may be 

the only option available for a Council. 

XIII. Establishing Annual Catch Limit 

(ACL) and Accountability Measure 

(AM) Mechanisms 

NMFS is proposing minor revisions to 

reduce redundancy and improve clarity 

within § 600.310(h). NMFS proposes to 

remove the guidance on stock 

complexes and indicator stocks within 

current paragraph (h) because it is 

redundant; similar guidance is 

contained in § 600.310(d)(2)(ii) of the 

proposed action. 

NMFS proposes to remove current 

§§ 600.310(h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii), because 

they are redundant with the guidance in 

§§ 600.310(f)(4)(i) and (f)(4)(ii), 

respectively, of this proposed action. As 

described above in preamble section XII, 

NMFS proposes to remove the guidance 

on AMs in current §§ 600.310(h)(1)(iii) 

and (iv), and consolidate it into 

§§ 600.310(g)(1) and (f)(4)(ii), 

respectively, of this proposed action to 

improve clarity. 

The MSA provides a statutory 

exception to the requirements for ACLs 

and AMs for ‘‘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.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1853. Section 

600.310(h)(2) of the current NS1 

guidelines further explains that the life 

cycle 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 

individual has only one breeding season 

in its lifetime.’’ NMFS believes that the 

current guidance is confusing and that 

the requirement to only have one 

breeding season in a lifetime is overly 

restrictive. Some short lived species 

have multiple breeding cycles in a 

lifetime. NMFS proposes to revise this 

exception to apply to ‘‘a stock for which 

the average age of spawners in the 

population is approximately 1 year or 

less’’ (see § 600.310(h)(1)(i) of the 

proposed action). NMFS believes that 

this is a more scientifically correct 

description of a species that has a life 

cycle of approximately 1 year. 

Lastly, as described above in 

preamble section V, NMFS proposes 

amending the ‘‘Flexibility in application 

of NS1 guidelines’’ provision of the 

guidelines by adding two additional 

examples of circumstances that may not 

fit the standard approaches to 

specification of reference points as those 

described in the NS1 guidelines (see 

§ 600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action). 

XIV. Adding Flexibility in Rebuilding 

The topic of rebuilding plans has been 

discussed extensively in a number of 

public forums. NMFS received several 

comments in response to the NS1 ANPR 

stating that the 10-year rebuilding 

requirement is arbitrary and expressing 

a desire for more flexibility in meeting 

the statutory rebuilding requirements, 

while other commenters supported the 

use of the 10-year rebuilding 

requirement. Similar comments were 

provided at the Managing Our Nation’s 

Fisheries III conference held in 

Washington, DC, in 2013. The National 

Research Council also published a 

report on U.S. rebuilding plans in 2013 

(NRC 2013), which provided several 

findings and recommendations on 

improving rebuilding guidance. Below 

is a summary of the proposed revisions 

to the NS1 guidelines related to 

providing flexibility in developing 

effective rebuilding plans. 

Calculating Tmax

When the biomass of a stock has 

declined below a level that jeopardizes 

the capacity of the stock to produce 

MSY on a continuing basis, the stock is 

considered overfished. Section 304(e)(4) 

of the MSA requires Councils to specify 

a time period for rebuilding overfished 

stocks within 10 years, except in cases 

where the biology of the stock, other 

environmental conditions, or 

management measures under an 

international agreement in which the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2796 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

United States participates dictate 

otherwise. 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4). 

Currently, the NS1 guidelines provide 

guidance on determining the minimum 

(Tmin), maximum (Tmax), and target 

(Ttarget) time to rebuild a stock to a level 

that supports MSY (Bmsy). Tmin is 

defined as the amount of time the stock 

or stock complex is expected to take to 

rebuild to Bmsy in the absence of any 

fishing mortality. If Tmin for the stock or 

stock complex is 10 years or less, then 

Tmax for that stock is 10 years. 

Otherwise, Tmax is calculated as Tmin

plus the length of time associated with 

one generation time for that stock or 

stock complex. ‘‘Generation time’’ is 

defined in the proposed NS1 guidelines 

at § 600.310(j)(3)(i)(B)(2)(i) as the 

average length of time between when an 

individual is born and the birth of its 

offspring. 

In the past, Councils have had 

difficulties calculating Tmax (i.e., Tmin + 

1 generation time), because it requires 

life history information on the natural 

mortality, age at maturity, fecundity, 

and maximum age of the stock 

(Restrepo, et al. 1998). As a result, 

several Councils have had to rely on 

proxies of generation time, which can 

sometimes lead to either overly 

conservative or exaggerated estimates of 

Tmax. To address the data requirement 

issues of calculating generation time, 

NMFS is proposing to add two 

additional ways of calculating Tmax (see 

§ 600.310(j)(3)(i)(B) of the proposed 

rule). Thus, Councils will have three 

options for calculating Tmax: (1) Tmin

plus one generation time; (2) the amount 

of time the stock is expected to take to 

rebuild to its MSY biomass level if 

fished at 75 percent of MFMT; and (3) 

Tmin multiplied by two. These 

alternative methods of calculating Tmax

rely on different life history parameters, 

and provide similar timelines for 

rebuilding when compared to Tmin plus 

one generation time. The 75 percent of 

MFMT approach is potentially 

advantageous in that MFMT is highly 

correlated with the productivity of a 

stock, meaning there is a reduced 

probability of calculating less 

conservative or exaggerated estimates of 

Tmax. Whereas, Tmin multiple by two, is 

the most simplistic method of 

calculating Tmax, and it is has been 

applied elsewhere in the world. For 

example, the New Zealand’s Ministry of 

Primary Industries uses this method to 

calculate Tmax for their overfished 

stocks. When selecting a method for 

determining Tmax, a Council must 

provide a rationale for its decision based 

on the best scientific information 

available. 

NMFS does not expect that drastically 

different estimates of Tmax will result 

from one option to another. Rather, 

NMFS expects the method selected will 

largely depend on the best scientific 

information available for calculating 

Tmax. It is also important to note, that an 

overfished stock is expected to have a 

Ttarget that is less than Tmax, which 

rebuilds the stock in as short a time as 

possible (see § 600.310(j)(3)(i)(C) of this 

proposed rule). 

Adequate Progress and Extending 

Rebuilding Timelines 

MSA section 304(e)(7) requires the 

Secretary to review rebuilding plans to 

ensure that adequate progress toward 

ending overfishing and rebuilding 

affected fish stocks is being made. 16 

U.S.C. 1854(e)(7). The current NS1 

guidelines do not provide any guidance 

on this provision, and NMFS received 

several comments in response to the 

ANPR requesting additional guidance 

on this provision. NMFS proposes 

adding guidance to clarify that the 

review of rebuilding progress could 

include the review of recent stock 

assessments, comparisons of catches to 

the ACL, or other appropriate 

performance measures. NMFS also 

proposes that the Secretary may find 

that adequate progress in rebuilding is 

not being made if: Frebuild or the ACL 

associated with Frebuild are being 

exceeded and AMs are not effective at 

correcting for the overages; or when the 

rebuilding expectations of the stock or 

stock complex have significantly 

changed due to new and unexpected 

information about the status of the stock 

(see § 600.310(f)(3)(iv) of this proposed 

action). 

NMFS also proposes clarifying that, 

while a stock or stock complex is 

rebuilding, revising rebuilding 

timeframes (i.e., Ttarget and Tmax) or 

Frebuild is not necessary, unless the 

Secretary finds that adequate progress is 

not being made (see § 600.310(f)(3)(v) of 

this proposed action). As highlighted in 

the NRC (2013) report on rebuilding, the 

primary objective of a rebuilding plan 

should be to maintain fishing mortality 

at or below Frebuild. By doing so, 

managers can avoid issues with 

updating timelines that are based on 

biomass milestones, which are subject 

to uncertainty (see § 600.310(j)(3)(i)(A)) 

and changing environmental conditions 

that are outside the control of fishery 

managers. 

Emergency Actions and Interim 

Measures 

The NS1 guidelines provide guidance 

on emergency actions and interim 

measures to reduce overfishing that can 

be taken under sections 304(e)(6) and 

305(c) of the MSA. NMFS is proposing 

to delete §§ 600.310(j)(4)(i) and (ii) 

because: (1) The guidance simply 

repeats the language in the MSA; (2) 

NMFS has separately published a policy 

on implementing the provisions of MSA 

305(c) (NMFS Policy Directive 01–101– 

07, Policy Guidelines on the Use of 

Emergency Rules, 62 FR 44421 (Aug. 21, 

1997)); and (3) NS1 guidance should 

only provide guidance on the 304(e)(6) 

provisions of the MSA, because it 

pertains to rebuilding stocks. NMFS 

proposes to clarify in § 600.310(j)(4) of 

this proposed action that the Secretary’s 

ability to implement interim measures 

to reduce, but not necessarily end, 

overfishing should rarely be used and 

require that the following three criteria 

be met before the interim measure can 

be used: (1) The interim measure is 

needed to address an unanticipated and 

significantly changed understanding of 

the stock’s status; (2) ending overfishing 

immediately is expected to result in 

severe social and/or economic impacts 

to a fishery; and (3) the interim 

measures will at least ensure that the 

stock will increase its current biomass 

through the duration of the interim 

measure. 

Discontinuing a Rebuilding Plan Based 

on New Information 

Due to scientific uncertainty in the 

biomass estimate of fish stocks, 

occasionally a stock is identified as 

overfished, but is later determined to 

have never been overfished. The recent 

NRC (2013) study on rebuilding 

estimated that approximately 30 percent 

of rebuilding stocks are later discovered 

to have never been overfished. In the 

past, it has been NMFS’ policy that once 

a rebuilding plan has been 

implemented, the rebuilding plan 

cannot be discontinued until the stock 

has rebuilt to Bmsy, regardless of new 

information about the status of the stock 

when it was originally declared 

overfished. This policy was in place 

because a future stock assessment could 

find that the stock actually had been 

overfished, and rebuilding to Bmsy is 

consistent with the MSA’s objective that 

fisheries produce MSY on a continuing 

basis. 

However, NMFS realizes that 

rebuilding stocks are sometimes 

restricted to relatively low Frebuilds, 

which can have negative impacts on 

fishery participants due to the reduced 

landings of the overfished stock, as well 

as reduced catch of other stocks in 

mixed-stock fisheries. Therefore, NMFS 

is proposing to allow a Council to 

discontinue a rebuilding plan before it 

reaches Bmsy so long as the stock meets 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2797 

the following criteria: (1) The Secretary 

determines that the stock was not 

overfished in the year that the MSA 

section 304(e)(3) overfished 

determination was based on; and (2) the 

biomass of the stock is not currently 

below the MSST (see § 600.310(j)(5) of 

this proposed action). This proposed 

revision is based on the rationale that 

the terminal year of a stock assessment 

(i.e., the most recent year) is often the 

most uncertain, while subsequent 

reviews of that same year by stock 

assessments conducted several years 

later are often more accurate (NRC 

1998). Thus, if a subsequent assessment 

shows that the stock was not overfished 

in the year that the overfished 

determination was based on, it is more 

likely that the stock was never 

overfished. However, in such a 

situation, a Council may always opt to 

continue following the rebuilding plan 

to further the conservation and 

management needs of a stock or stock 

complex that remains below Bmsy. 

Other Revisions 

In § 600.310(j)(2), NMFS proposes 

deleting text that referred to the 2010 

and 2011 implementation dates for 

ACLs and AMs, given that these 

deadlines have passed and all 46 FMPs 

have implemented ACLs and AMs (see 

§§ 600.310(j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

proposed action). NMFS also proposes 

adding guidance to clarify that, when a 

Council is notified that a stock or stock 

complex is undergoing overfishing, it 

should work with its SSC to ensure that 

the ABC is set appropriately to end 

overfishing. Councils should evaluate 

the cause of the overfishing, address the 

issue that caused overfishing, and 

reevaluate their ACLs and AM to make 

sure they are adequate (see 

§ 600.310(j)(2)(i) of this proposed 

action). 

XV. Recreational Fisheries 

Since the reauthorization of the MSA 

in 2007, many recreational stakeholders 

have commented that the ACL 

requirements of the MSA do not 

recognize the different ways in which 

recreational and commercial fisheries 

are managed and prosecuted. The 

recreational community has provided 

comments through a variety of forums, 

such as: the 2012 NS1 ANPR; NMFS’s 

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee’s 

White Paper on Recommendations for 

MSA by the Recreational Working 

Group; NMFS’s Recreational Regional 

Roundtable discussions of 2013; 

Managing Our Nations Fisheries III 

(2013); The Commission on Saltwater 

Recreational Fisheries Management, A 

Vision for Managing America’s 

Saltwater Recreational Fisheries (Morris 

and Deal 2014); and NMFS Recreational 

Saltwater Fishing Summits in 2010 and 

2014. In general, the recreational 

community has expressed an interest in 

increased fishing opportunities; having 

the opportunity to catch larger fish; 

flexibility in setting ACLs for 

recreational fisheries; managing for 

greater abundance; and, managing 

forage fish more conservatively to 

improve the resiliency of recreationally 

important fish stocks. While not 

highlighted in a separate or specific 

section, these issues are addressed in 

various sections of this proposed rule. 

Recreational Fishing Objectives 

NMFS recognizes that recreational 

and commercial sectors of a fishery will 

sometimes have different objectives for 

a fishery. Existing guidelines note that 

it is the Councils’ responsibility to 

integrate the objectives of these various 

sectors or fishery participants into their 

fishery management plans, and 

prioritize among these objectives when 

they are in conflict (see §§ 600.305(b) 

and 600.310(e)(3)). However, in practice 

the process of identifying and 

prioritizing the objectives of a fishery 

are rarely reexamined once defined; 

there are some exceptions like the MidAtlantic and South-Atlantic Councils’ 

recent visioning processes (for more 

information on these projects, see: 

http://safmc.net/resource-library/

council-visioning-project and http://

www.mafmc.org/strategic-plan/). 

Because the needs and objectives of a 

fishery change over time, NMFS is 

proposing that Councils reassess the 

objectives of the fishery on a regular 

basis (see § 600.305(b)(2) of this 

proposed action). Recreational 

fishermen should work with their 

Councils to advance their sector specific 

objectives, such as increasing the 

opportunity to catch larger fish. 

Flexibility in Setting ACLs and AMs 

The MSA requires ACLs and AMs for 

all managed fisheries; however, the NS1 

guidelines do not require Councils to 

specify or implement AMs in the same 

manner among the sectors of a fishery. 

For example, in several cases, Councils 

have chosen to monitor the commercial 

catch using daily or weekly reporting 

mechanisms and use in-season 

management measures to close the 

commercial sector when it is expected 

to reach its ACL. In contrast, in some 

recreational fisheries, catch can only be 

monitored in 2-month increments, and 

ACL overages can only be addressed 

through post-season AMs. So as not to 

be constrained to one type of AM, the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 

Councils have developed conditional 

AMs that implement different AMs 

depending on the status of the stock 

and/or degree of ACL overage. These 

conditional AMs provide flexibility in 

managing sectors of the fishery 

differently. NMFS encourages the use of 

conditional AMs and proposes 

clarifying that the type of AM chosen by 

a Council will likely vary depending on 

the sector of the fishery, the status of the 

stock, degree of overage, recruitment 

patterns of the stock, and other 

pertinent information (see 

§ 600.310(g)(3) of this proposed action). 

NMFS also recognizes that an 

impediment to implementing ACLs for 

many recreationally important fish 

stocks is the lack of life history 

information to calculate MSY (or a 

standard proxy), as well as the lack of 

timely information on the catch levels of 

the stock. As noted above in section V 

of the preamble, NMFS is proposing to 

revise the NS1 guidelines to make clear 

that, when data are not available to 

specify MSY or MSY proxies, 

alternative types of SDCs that promote 

sustainability of the stock or stock 

complex can be used (see 

§ 600.310(e)(2)(ii) of this proposed 

action). For example, SDCs could be 

based on recent average catch, fish 

densities derived from visual census 

surveys, length/weight frequencies or 

other methods. NMFS also proposes to 

allow alternative approaches to 

satisfying the NS1 requirements for 

stocks for which data are not available 

to either set MSY or MSY based 

reference points or manage to MSY or 

MSY based reference points (see 

§ 600.310(h)(2) of this proposed action). 

NMFS understands that many of the 

fish stocks captured in recreational 

fisheries are not targeted, but retained 

because they are valued by the 

fishermen. In the current NS1 

guidelines, these ‘‘often retained’’ nontarget stocks are considered to be ‘‘in the 

fishery’’ and are therefore required to 

have ACLs. Many stakeholders 

including recreational fishery 

participants have noted that, while 

these non-target stocks are often 

retained, many of these stocks may not 

be in need of conservation and 

management. As noted above in section 

IV of the preamble, NMFS is revising its 

guidance on stocks in the fishery and 

ecosystem component species to 

provide further guidance to Councils in 

determining whether stocks require 

conservation and management based on 

several factors. Therefore, some nontarget fish stocks may no longer need 

ACLs based on this proposed rule. 

Some stakeholders have also 

recommended that, where appropriate, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2798 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

NMFS should consider allowing 

fisheries (in their entirety) to be 

managed at the state level. They have 

expressed that Federal agencies are not 

always the most appropriate 

organizations to manage fisheries, and, 

where applicable, states or fishery 

management commissions should take 

control of managing fish populations. 

NMFS agrees that Federal management 

is not required for all stocks, and has in 

the past provided guidance on when 

Federal management was and was not 

needed within its NS7 guidelines. As 

explained in Section IV, NMFS is 

consolidating guidance on stocks that 

require conservation and management 

in proposed § 600.305(c). 

Forage Fish 

NMFS is not proposing any new 

revisions to the NS guidelines related to 

forage fish, as the importance of forage 

fish to fisheries and the marine 

ecosystem was adequately highlighted 

in the 2009 revisions of the NS1 

guidelines. For example, in current 

§ 600.310(e)(3)(iii)(C), NMFS notes that 

maintaining adequate forage for all 

components of the ecosystem is one 

consideration that could be taken by the 

Council when determining the greatest 

benefit to the Nation. Additionally, 

current § 600.310(e)(3)(iv)(C) describes 

that, when specifying OY, consideration 

should be given to managing forage 

stocks for higher biomass than Bmsy to 

enhance and protect the marine 

ecosystem. NMFS is not proposing to 

change these concepts within the 

guidelines. 

XVI. Republishing Codified Text in Its 

Entirety 

For clarity and convenience to the 

reader, this proposed rule would revise 

§ 600.305 (National Standard General), 

§ 600.310 (National Standard 1 

guidelines), § 600.320 (National 

Standard 3 guidelines) and § 600.340 

(National Standard 7 guidelines) in their 

entirety. The following describes the 

changes to these guidelines that are 

being proposed, and a tracked changes 

copy of the proposed rule is also 

available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/

ns1_revisions.html. 

In the proposed revisions to 

§ 600.305, paragraph (b)—Fishery 

management objectives, is revised. 

Current paragraph (c)—Word usage is 

revised and redesignated paragraph (d). 

A new paragraph (c)—Stocks that 

require conservation and management, 

is added to describe which stocks are in 

need of conservation and management. 

In the proposed revisions to 

§ 600.310, paragraph (b)—General, is 

revised. Paragraph (c)—Summary of 

items to include in FMPs related to NS1, 

is revised. Current paragraph (d)— 

Classifying stocks in an FMP, is retitled 

Stocks and stock complexes. Paragraph 

(d)(1)—Introduction, is revised. Current 

paragraphs (d)(2)—Stocks in a fishery, 

(d)(4)—Non-target species, and (d)(5)— 

Ecosystem component (EC) species were 

deleted. Current paragraph (d)(3)— 

Target stocks, was revised and 

redesignated (d)(11) in § 600.305. 

Current paragraph (d)(6)— 

Reclassification, was revised and 

redesignated (c)(5) in § 600.305. Current 

paragraph (d)(7)—Stocks or species 

identified in more than on FMP, was 

revised and redesignated (c)(4) in 

§ 600.305. Current paragraph (d)(8)— 

Stock complex was revised and 

redesignated (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii)(B). 

Current paragraph (d)(9)—Indicator 

stocks, was revised and redesignated 

(d)(2)(ii)(A),(C)–(D). Current paragraph 

(d)(10)—Vulnerability, was revised and 

redesignated (b)(4). Current paragraph 

(e)(1)—MSY, was revised. Current 

paragraph (e)(1)(iii)—MSY for stock 

complexes, was revised and portions 

therein were redesignated in 

(d)(2)(ii)(E). Current paragraph 

(e)(1)(iv)—Specifying MSY, was revised 

and redesignated (e)(1)(v)(A)–(D). A new 

paragraph (e)(1)(iv)—Methods of 

estimating MSY for an aggregate group 

of stocks, was added to describe 

alternative methods of calculating MSY 

for a group of stocks. Paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i)(A)—Status determination 

criteria (SDC), (e)(2)(i)(B)—Overfishing, 

(e)(2)(i)(C)—Maximum Fishing Mortality 

Threshold (MFMT), (e)(2)(i)(D)— 

Overfishing limit, (e)(2)(i)(E)— 

Overfished were revised. Current 

paragraph (e)(2)(i)(F)—Minimum stock 

size threshold (MSST), was revised and 

redesignated (e)(2)(i)(G). Current 

paragraph (e)(2)(i)(G)—Approaching an 

overfished condition, was redesignated 

(e)(2)(i)(H). A new paragraph 

(e)(2)(i)(F)—Depleted, was added to 

defined the term depleted. Paragraphs 

(e)(2)(ii)—Specification of SDC and 

overfishing and overfished 

determinations and subsections therein 

(e)(2)(ii)(A)–(B) were revised. Paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii)(A)(3) was added to describe 

multiyear periods to determine 

overfishing status. Paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(C) 

was added to describe that sources of 

mortality should be accounted for in the 

evaluation of stock status with respect 

to reference points. Current paragraph 

(e)(2)(iii)—Relationship of SDC to 

environmental change, is retitled 

Relationship of SDC to environmental 

and habitat change. Current paragraphs 

(e)(2)(iii)(C), (e)(2)(iv)(A), (e)(3)— 

Optimum yield, (e)(3)(i)(A)–(B), and 

(e)(3)(ii)—General were revised. Current 

paragraph (e)(3)(iii)—Determining the 

greatest benefit to the Nation, was 

revised and redesignated (e)(3)(iii)(A). 

Current paragraphs (e)(3)(iii)(A)–(C), 

were revised and redesignated 

(e)(3)(iii)(A)(1)–(3), respectively. A new 

paragraph (e)(3)(iii)—Assessing OY, was 

added to described the OY assessment 

process. Current paragraph (e)(3)(iv)— 

Factors to consider in OY specification, 

was revised, redesignated (e)(3)(iii)(B) 

and retitled Economic, Ecological, and 

Social Factors. Current paragraphs 

(e)(3)(iv)(A)–(C), were revised and 

redesignated (e)(3)(iii)(B)(1)–(3). Current 

paragraph (e)(3)(v)—Specification of 

OY, was revised, redesignated (e)(3)(iv), 

and retitled Specifying OY. Current 

paragraph (e)(3)(v)(A) was revised and 

redesignated (e)(3)(iv)(A). Current 

paragraph (e)(3)(v)(B), was deleted, and 

the content was incorporated into 

(e)(3)(v)(A). Current paragraph 

(e)(3)(v)(C), was revised and 

redesignated (e)(3)(ii)(C). Current 

paragraph (e)(3)(v)(D), was redesignated 

to (e)(3)(v)(A). Current paragraph 

(e)(3)(v)(E), was redesignated 

(e)(3)(iv)(B). Current paragraph 

(e)(3)(v)(F), was revised and 

redesignated (e)(3)(iv)(C). Current 

paragraph (e)(3)(v)(G), was deleted and 

the concept was moved to (e)(3)(iii). 

Current paragraph (e)(3)(v)(H), was 

redesignated (e)(3)(v)(B). A new 

paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(D), was added to 

address issues with internationally 

managed stocks. Current paragraph 

(e)(3)(vi)—OY and foreign fishing, was 

redesignated (e)(3)(v). Current 

paragraphs (e)(3)(vi)(A)–(C), were 

redesignated (e)(3)(v)(C)–(E), 

respectively. Paragraph (f)—Acceptable 

biological catch, annual catch limits, 

and annual catch targets, is revised and 

retitled Acceptable biological catch and 

annual catch limits. Paragraph (f)(1)— 

Introduction, was deleted. Current 

paragraph (f)(2)—Definitions and 

(f)(2)(i), are redesignated (f)(1) and 

(f)(1)(i), respectively. Current paragraph 

(f)(2)(ii)—Acceptable biological catch 

(ABC), is revised and redesignated 

(f)(1)(ii). Current paragraph (f)(2)(iii)— 

ABC control rule, is deleted. Current 

paragraph (f)(2)(iv)—Annual catch limit 

(ACL), is revised and redesignated 

(f)(1)(iii). Current paragraphs (f)(2)(v)— 

Annual catch target (ACT) and 

(f)(2)(vi)—ACT control rule, were 

deleted and the content was moved to 

paragraph (g)(4). New paragraphs 

(f)(1)(iv)—Control rule, (f)(1)(v)— 

Management uncertainty, and 

(f)(1)(vi)—Scientific uncertainty, were 

added because the terms were not 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2799 

clearly defined in the current 

guidelines. Current paragraphs (f)(3)— 

Specification of ABC and (f)(3)(ii) were 

revised. Current paragraph (f)(4)—ABC 

control rule, was revised and 

redesignated (f)(2)(i)–(ii). Paragraphs 

(f)(2)(ii)(A)&(B) were added to describe 

phase-in and carry-over ABC control 

rules. Current paragraph (f)(5)—Setting 

the annual catch limit, was redesignated 

(f)(4). Current paragraphs (f)(5)(i)–(iii) 

were revised and redesignated (f)(4)(i)– 

(iii), respectively. A new paragraph 

(f)(4)(iv)—Relationship between OY and 

the ACL framework, was added. Current 

paragraphs (f)(6)—ACT control rule, 

(f)(6)(i)—Determining management 

uncertainty and (f)(6)(ii)—Establishing 

tiers and corresponding ACT control 

rules, were revised and redesignated 

(g)(4)—Annual catch target (ACT) and 

ACT control rule. Paragraph (f)(7) was 

deleted. Paragraph (g)—Accountability 

measures, was revised and retitled 

Accountability measures (AMs). 

Paragraph (g)(1)—Introduction, and 

(g)(2)—Inseason AMs were revised. 

Paragraph (g)(3)—AMs for when the ACL 

is exceeded, was revised and portions 

therein were redesignated to a new 

paragraph (g)(7)—Performance 

standard. Current paragraphs (g)(4)— 

AMs based on multi-year average data, 

was revised and redesignated (g)(5). 

Current paragraph (g)(5)—AMs for StateFederal Fisheries, was redesignated 

(g)(6). Paragraph (h)—Establishing ACL 

mechanisms and AMs in FMPs, was 

revised. Current paragraphs (h)(1)(i)–(ii) 

were deleted. Current paragraphs 

(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(1)(iv) were deleted and 

incorporated in (g)(1) and (f)(4)(ii), 

respectively. Current paragraph (h)(2)— 

Exceptions from ACL and AM 

requirements and (h)(2)(ii)— 

International fishery agreements, were 

redesignated (h)(1) and (h)(1)(ii), 

respectively. Current paragraphs 

(h)(2)(i)—Life cycle and (h)(3)— 

Flexibility in application of NS1 

guidelines, were revised and 

redesignated (h)(1)(i) and (h)(2), 

respectively. Paragraphs (i)—Fisheries 

data and (i)(3), were revised. Paragraph 

(j)—Council actions to address 

overfishing and rebuilding for stocks 

and stock complex in the fishery, was 

retitled Council actions to address 

overfishing and rebuilding for stocks 

and stock complexes. Paragraph 

(j)(2)(i)—If a stock or stock complex is 

undergoing overfishing, was revised. 

Paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A)–(C), were deleted. 

Paragraph (j)(2)(ii)—If a stock or stock 

complex is overfished or approaching 

an overfished condition, was revised. 

Paragraph (j)(3)(i)(A), was revised. 

Paragraph (j)(3)(i)(B), was deleted but 

portions therein were revised and 

incorporated into paragraph (j)(3)(i)(A). 

Current paragraph (j)(3)(i)(C), was 

revised and redesignated (j)(3)(i)(B)(1). 

Current paragraph (j)(3)(i)(D), was 

revised and redesignated (j)(3)(i)(B)(2), 

(j)(3)(i)(B)(2)(i)–(iii) and (j)(3)(i)(B)(3). 

Current paragraph (j)(3)(i)(E), is revised 

and redesignated (j)(3)(i)(C)—Target 

time to rebuilding a stock or stock 

complex (Ttarget). Paragraph (j)(3)(ii), 

was revised and redesignated (j)(4)— 

Adequate progress, and (j)(4)(i)–(ii). 

Current paragraphs (j)(3)(iii) and 

(j)(3)(iv), were redesignated (j)(3)(ii) and 

(j)(3)(iii), respectively. Current 

paragraph (j)(4)—Emergency actions 

and interim measures, was revised and 

redesignated (j)(4). Current paragraphs 

(j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii), were deleted. New 

paragraphs (j)(5)—Discontinuing a 

rebuilding plan based on new scientific 

information, (j)(5)(i)–(ii), and (j)(6)— 

Management measures for depleted 

stocks, were added. 

In the proposed revisions to 

§ 600.320, paragraphs (d)—Management 

unit and (d)(1)—Basis, were revised. 

Paragraphs (d)(1)(i)–(vi), were deleted. 

Paragraphs (d)(2)—Conservation and 

management measures, and (e)— 

Analysis were revised. 

In the proposed revisions to 

§ 600.340, paragraphs (b)—Necessity of 

Federal management, (b)(1)—General, 

and (b)(2)—Criteria were deleted. 

Current paragraphs (b)(2)(i)–(iii), were 

revised and redesignated paragraphs 

(c)(2)(vi), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(x), 

respectively, in § 600.305. Current 

paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)–(vi) were 

redesignated paragraphs (c)(2)(vii)–(ix) 

in § 600.305. Paragraph (b)(2)(vii), was 

deleted. Current paragraphs (c)— 

Alternative management measures, and 

(d)—Analysis, were redesignated (b)— 

Alternative management measures, and 

(c)—Analysis. 

XVII. References Cited 

A complete list of all the references 

cited in this final action is available 

online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/

ns1_revisions.html or upon request from 

Wesley Patrick (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

XIII. Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with the Act, and other applicable law, 

subject to further consideration after 

public comment. 

This rule has been determined to be 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

rule, if adopted, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this determination 

is as follows. 

The purpose of the rule is to facilitate 

compliance with requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act to end and 

prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished 

stocks, and achieve optimum yield (OY) 

without establishing new requirements 

or requiring the Councils or Secretary to 

revise their Fishery Management Plans 

(FMPs). The objectives of the rule are to 

improve and clarify the guidance within 

the NS guidelines, address concerns that 

have been raised during the 

implementation of annual catch limits 

(ACLs) and accountability measures 

(AMs), and provide flexibility to address 

fishery management issues. Pursuant to 

MSA section 301(b), the NS guidelines 

are advisory in nature and do not have 

the force and effect of law. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the 

legal basis for the rule. 

Small entities include ‘‘small 

businesses,’’ ‘‘small organizations,’’ and 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ The 

Small Business Administration has 

established size standards for all major 

industry sectors in the U.S. including 

commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS 

code 114111), commercial shellfish 

harvesters (NAICS code 114112), other 

commercial marine harvesters (NAICS 

code 114119), for-hire businesses 

(NAICS code 487210), marinas (NAICS 

code 713930), seafood dealers/

wholesalers (NAICS code 424460), and 

seafood processors (NAICS code 

311710). A business primarily involved 

in finfish harvesting is classified as a 

small business if it is independently 

owned and operated, is not dominant in 

its field of operation (including its 

affiliates), and has combined annual 

receipts not in excess of $20.5 million 

for all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. For commercial shellfish 

harvesters, the other qualifiers apply 

and the receipts threshold is $5.5 

million. For other commercial marine 

harvesters, for-hire businesses, and 

marinas, the other qualifiers apply and 

the receipts threshold is $7.5 million. A 

business primarily involved in seafood 

processing is classified as a small 

business if it is independently owned 

and operated, is not dominant in its 

field of operation (including its 

affiliates), and has combined annual 

employment not in excess of 500 

employees for all its affiliated 

operations worldwide. For seafood 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2800 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

dealers/wholesalers, the other qualifiers 

apply and the employment threshold is 

100 employees. A small organization is 

any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. Small 

governmental jurisdictions are 

governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with populations of 

less than 50,000. 

The actions in this rule make 

technical changes to the general section 

to the National Standard Guidelines, 

and the Guidelines for National 

Standard 1 (NS 1), National Standard 3 

(NS 3), and National Standard 7 (NS 7). 

Specifically, this rule would: (1) Revise 

the general section of the NS guidelines 

regarding the importance of identifying 

fishery management objectives within 

an FMP, (2) consolidate guidance on 

identifying whether stocks need 

conservation and management, (3) 

revise the guidelines to provide 

flexibility in managing data limited 

stocks, (4) revise the guidance on stock 

complexes to encourage the use of 

complexes and indicator stocks, (5) 

revise the guidelines to promote the use 

of aggregate MSY estimates, (6) revise 

the guidelines by adding a definition for 

a depleted stock, (7) revise the 

guidelines to allow multi-year 

overfishing determinations, methods to 

phase-in adjustments to ABC, and 

methods to carry-over of all or some of 

an unused portion of the ACL, (8) revise 

guidance on OY to improve clarity and 

describe the role of OY under the ACL 

framework, (9) revise the acceptable 

biological catch (ABC) guidance, (10) 

revise guidance on AMs, (11) revise 

guidance on establishing ACL and AM 

mechanisms, and (12) provide flexibility 

in rebuilding stocks. 

Because the proposed changes to the 

guidelines do not create new 

requirements and thus are technical in 

nature, this rule would allow but does 

not require the Councils or the Secretary 

to make changes to their FMPs. Further, 

because the guidelines do not directly 

regulate any entities, the proposed 

changes will not directly alter the 

behavior of any entities operating in 

federally managed fisheries, and thus no 

direct economic effects on commercial 

harvesting businesses, for-hire 

businesses, marinas, seafood dealers/ 

wholesalers, or seafood processors are 

expected to result from this action. 

Therefore, no small entities would be 

directly affected by this rule. 

As a result of the information above, 

a reduction in profits for a substantial 

number of small entities is not expected. 

Because this rule, if implemented, is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

economic effect on the profits of a 

substantial number of small entities, an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required and none has been 

prepared. 

No duplicative, overlapping, or 

conflicting Federal rules have been 

identified. This rule would not establish 

any new reporting or record-keeping 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing 

vessels, Foreign relations, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Statistics. 

Dated: January 12, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Services, 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: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. 

■ 2. Section 600.305 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 600.305 General. 

(a) Purpose. (1) This subpart 

establishes guidelines, based on the 

national standards, to assist in the 

development and review of FMPs, 

amendments, and regulations prepared 

by the Councils and the Secretary. 

(2) In developing FMPs, the Councils 

have the initial authority to ascertain 

factual circumstances, to establish 

management objectives, and to propose 

management measures that will achieve 

the objectives. The Secretary will 

determine whether the proposed 

management objectives and measures 

are consistent with the national 

standards, other provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law. The Secretary has an 

obligation under section 301(b) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act to inform the 

Councils of the Secretary’s 

interpretation of the national standards 

so that they will have an understanding 

of the basis on which FMPs will be 

reviewed. 

(3) The national standards are 

statutory principles that must be 

followed in any FMP. The guidelines 

summarize Secretarial interpretations 

that have been, and will be, applied 

under these principles. The guidelines 

are intended as aids to decision-making; 

FMPs formulated according to the 

guidelines will have a better chance for 

expeditious Secretarial review, 

approval, and implementation. FMPs 

that are in substantial compliance with 

the guidelines, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable law must be 

approved. 

(b) Fishery management objectives. (1) 

Each FMP, whether prepared by a 

Council or by the Secretary, should 

identify what the FMP is designed to 

accomplish (i.e., the management 

objectives to be attained in regulating 

the fishery under consideration). In 

establishing objectives, Councils 

balance biological constraints with 

human needs, reconcile present and 

future costs and benefits, and integrate 

the diversity of public and private 

interests. If objectives are in conflict, 

priorities should be established among 

them. 

(2) To reflect the changing needs of 

the fishery over time, Councils should 

reassess the objectives of the fishery on 

a regular basis. 

(3) How objectives are defined is 

important to the management process. 

Objectives should address the problems 

of a particular fishery. The objectives 

should be clearly stated, practicably 

attainable, framed in terms of definable 

events and measurable benefits, and 

based upon a comprehensive rather than 

a fragmentary approach to the problems 

addressed. An FMP should make a clear 

distinction between objectives and the 

management measures chosen to 

achieve them. The objectives of each 

FMP provide the context within which 

the Secretary will judge the consistency 

of an FMP’s conservation and 

management measures with the national 

standards. 

(c) Stocks that require conservation 

and management. (1) MagnusonStevens Act section 302(h)(1) requires a 

Council to prepare an FMP for each 

fishery under its authority that requires 

(or in other words, is in need of) 

conservation and management. Not 

every fishery requires Federal 

management. Any stocks that are 

predominately caught in Federal waters 

and are overfished or subject to 

overfishing, or likely to become 

overfished or subject to overfishing, are 

considered to require conservation and 

management. In addition, the following 

non-exhaustive list of factors should be 

used by a Council when deciding 

whether stocks require conservation and 

management: 

(i) The stock is an important 

component of the marine environment. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2801 

(ii) The stock is caught by the fishery. 

(iii) Whether an FMP can improve or 

maintain the condition of the stocks. 

(iv) The stock is a target of a fishery. 

(v) The stock is important to 

commercial, recreational, or subsistence 

users. 

(vi) The fishery is important to the 

Nation and to the regional economy. 

(vii) The need to resolve competing 

interests and conflicts among user 

groups and whether an FMP can further 

that resolution. 

(viii) The economic condition of a 

fishery and whether an FMP can 

produce more efficient utilization. 

(ix) The needs of a developing fishery, 

and whether an FMP can foster orderly 

growth. 

(x) The extent to which the fishery 

could be or is already adequately 

managed by states, by state/Federal 

programs, by Federal regulations 

pursuant to other FMPs or international 

commissions, or by industry selfregulation, consistent with the policies 

and standards of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. 

(2) When considering adding a new 

stock to an FMP or keeping an existing 

stock within an FMP, Councils should 

prepare a thorough analysis of the 

factors, and any additional 

considerations that may be relevant to 

the particular stock. No single factor is 

dispositive, but Councils should 

consider weighting the factors as 

follows. Factors in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section should be 

considered first, as they address 

maintaining a fishery resource and the 

marine environment. See 16 U.S.C. 

1802(5)(A). These factors weigh in favor 

of including a stock in an FMP. 

Councils should next consider factors in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) through (ix) of this 

section, which set forth key economic, 

social, and other reasons contained 

within the MSA for an FMP action. See 

16 U.S.C. 1802(5)(B). Regardless of 

whether any of the first nine factors 

indicates a conservation and 

management need, a Council should 

consider factor in paragraph (c)(1)(x) of 

this section before deciding to include 

or maintain a stock in an FMP. In many 

circumstances, adequate management of 

a fishery by states, state/Federal 

programs, or another Federal FMP 

would weigh heavily against a Federal 

FMP action. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(7) and 1856(a)(3). In evaluating 

the above criteria, a Council should 

consider the specific circumstances of a 

fishery, based on the best scientific 

information available; to determine 

whether there are biological, economic, 

social and/or operational concerns that 

can be addressed by Federal 

management. 

(3) Councils may choose to identify 

stocks within their FMPs as ecosystem 

component (EC) species (see 

§ 600.310(d)(1)) if they do not require 

conservation and management. EC 

species may be identified at the species 

or stock level, and may be grouped into 

complexes. Consistent with National 

Standard 9, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) section 303(b)(12), and other 

applicable MSA sections, management 

measures can be adopted in order to, for 

example, collect data on the EC species, 

minimize bycatch or bycatch mortality 

of EC species, protect the associated role 

of EC species in the ecosystem, or for 

other reasons. 

(4) A stock or stock complex may be 

identified in more than one FMP. In this 

situation, the relevant Councils should 

choose which FMP will be the primary 

FMP in which reference points for the 

stock or stock complex are established. 

In other FMPs, the stock or stock 

complex may be identified as ‘‘other 

managed stocks’’ and management 

measures that are consistent with the 

objectives of the primary FMP can be 

established. 

(5) Councils should periodically 

review their FMPs and the best 

scientific information available and 

determine if the stocks are appropriately 

identified. As appropriate, stocks 

should be reclassified within a FMP, 

added to or removed from an existing 

FMP, or added to a new FMP, through 

a FMP amendment that documents the 

rationale for the decision. 

(d) Word usage within the National 

Standard Guidelines. The word usage 

refers to all regulations in this subpart. 

(1) Must is used, instead of ‘‘shall’’, to 

denote an obligation to act; it is used 

primarily when referring to 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the logical extension thereof, or of 

other applicable law. 

(2) Shall is used only when quoting 

statutory language directly, to avoid 

confusion with the future tense. 

(3) Should is used to indicate that an 

action or consideration is strongly 

recommended to fulfill the Secretary’s 

interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and is a factor reviewers will look 

for in evaluating a SOPP or FMP. 

(4) May is used in a permissive sense. 

(5) Will is used descriptively, as 

distinguished from denoting an 

obligation to act or the future tense. 

(6) Could is used when giving 

examples, in a hypothetical, permissive 

sense. 

(7) Can is used to mean ‘‘is able to’’, 

as distinguished from ‘‘may’’. 

(8) Examples are given by way of 

illustration and further explanation. 

They are not inclusive lists; they do not 

limit options. 

(9) Analysis, as a paragraph heading, 

signals more detailed guidance as to the 

type of discussion and examination an 

FMP should contain to demonstrate 

compliance with the standard in 

question. 

(10) Council includes the Secretary, as 

applicable, when preparing FMPs or 

amendments under section 304(c) and 

(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

(11) Target stocks are stocks or stock 

complexes that fishers seek to catch for 

sale or personal use, including 

‘‘economic discards’’ as defined under 

Magnuson-Stevens Act section 3(9). 

■ 3. Section 600.310 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

require, or are in need of, conservation 

and management; 

(iii) Preventing overfishing and 

achieving OY, incorporation of 

scientific and management uncertainty 

in control rules, and adaptive 

management using annual catch limits 

(ACL) and measures to ensure 

accountability (i.e., accountability 

measures (AMs)); 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 must not 

jeopardize the capacity of a stock or 

stock complex to produce MSY; the 

abundance of an overfished stock or 

stock complex must be rebuilt to a level 

that is capable of producing MSY; and 

OY must 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2802 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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)(A) and (B) 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 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)). 

(iv) Reference points. SDC, MSY, OY, 

acceptable biological catch (ABC), and 

ACL, which are described further in 

paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, are 

collectively referred to as ‘‘reference 

points.’’ 

(v) Scientific advice. The MagnusonStevens Act has requirements regarding 

scientific and statistical committees 

(SSC) of the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, including but 

not limited to, the following provisions 

(paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(A) through (D) of 

this section). See the National Standard 

2 guidelines for further guidance on 

SSCs and the peer review process 

(§ 600.315). 

(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). 

(C) The Secretary and each Regional 

Fishery Management Council may 

establish a peer review process for that 

Council for scientific information used 

to advise the Council about the 

conservation and management of a 

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 to be used by the SSC or 

agency or international scientists, as 

appropriate. For Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, the peer review 

process is not a substitute for the SSC 

and should work in conjunction with 

the SSC. For the Secretary, which does 

not have an SSC, the peer review 

process should provide the scientific 

information necessary. 

(D) Each 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)). The SSC 

recommendation that is the most 

relevant to ACLs is ABC, as both ACL 

and ABC are levels of annual catch. 

(3) Approach for setting limits and 

accountability measures, including 

targets, for consistency with NS1. When 

specifying limits and accountability 

measures, Councils must take an 

approach that considers uncertainty in 

scientific information and management 

control of the fishery. These guidelines 

describe how the Councils could 

address uncertainty such that there is a 

low risk that limits are exceeded as 

described in paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(4) 

of this section. 

(4) Vulnerability. A stock’s 

vulnerability to fishing pressure is a 

combination of its productivity, which 

depends upon its life history 

characteristics, and its susceptibility to 

the fishery. Productivity refers to the 

capacity of the stock to produce MSY 

and to recover if the population is 

depleted or overfished, and 

susceptibility is the potential for the 

stock to be impacted by the fishery, 

which includes direct captures, as well 

as indirect impacts of the fishery (e.g., 

loss of habitat quality). 

(c) Summary of items to include in 

FMPs related to NS1. This section 

provides a summary of items that 

Councils must include in their FMPs 

and FMP amendments in order to 

address ACL, AM, and other aspects of 

the NS1 guidelines. Councils must 

describe fisheries data for the stocks and 

stock complexes in their FMPs, or 

associated public documents such as 

Stock Assessment and Fishery 

Evaluation (SAFE) Reports. For all 

stocks and stock complexes that require 

conservation and management (see 

§ 600.305(c)), the Councils must 

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 and to achieve OY: 

(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)(2) of this section). 

(4) Mechanisms for specifying ACLs 

(see paragraph (f)(4) of this section). 

(5) AMs (see paragraph (g) of this 

section). 

(6) Stocks and stock complexes that 

have statutory exceptions from ACLs 

and AMs (see paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section) or which fall under limited 

circumstances which require different 

approaches to meet the MagnusonStevens Act requirements (see 

paragraph (h)(2) of this section). 

(d) Stocks and stock complexes—(1) 

Introduction. As described in 

§ 600.305(c), Councils should identify in 

their FMPs the stocks that require 

conservation and management. Such 

stocks must have ACLs, other reference 

points, and accountability measures. 

Other stocks that are identified in an 

FMP (i.e., ecosystem component species 

or stocks that the fishery interacts with 

but are managed primarily under 

another FMP, see § 600.305(c)(3) and 

(4)) do not require ACLs, other reference 

points, and accountability measures. 

(2) Stock complex. Stocks that require 

conservation and management can be 

grouped into stock complexes. A ‘‘stock 

complex’’ is a tool to manage a group of 

stocks within a FMP. 

(i) At the time a stock complex is 

established, the FMP should provide, to 

the extent practicable, a full and explicit 

description of the proportional 

composition of each stock in the stock 

complex. 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 a 

stock’s status relative to SDC; or when 

it is not feasible for fishermen to 

distinguish individual stocks among 

their catch. Where practicable, the 

group of stocks should have a similar 

geographic distribution, life history 

characteristics, and vulnerabilities to 

fishing pressure such that the impact of 

management actions on the stocks is 

similar. The vulnerability of individual 

stocks should be considered when 

determining if a particular stock 

complex should be established or 

reorganized, or if a particular stock 

should be included in a complex. 

(ii) Indicator stocks. (A) An indicator 

stock is a stock with measurable and 

objective SDC that can be used to help 

manage and evaluate more poorly 

known stocks that are in a stock 

complex. 

(B) Where practicable, stock 

complexes should include one or more 

indicator stocks (each of which has SDC 

and ACLs). Otherwise, stock complexes 

may be comprised of: Several stocks 

without an indicator stock (with SDC 

and an ACL for the complex as a whole), 

or one or more indicator stocks (each of 

which has SDC and management 

objectives) with an ACL for the complex 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2803 

as a whole (this situation might be 

applicable to some salmon species). 

Councils should review the available 

quantitative or qualitative information 

(e.g., catch trends, changes in 

vulnerability, fish health indices, etc.) of 

stocks within a complex on a regular 

basis to determine if they are being 

sustainably managed. 

(C) If an indicator stock is used to 

evaluate the status of a complex, it 

should be representative of the typical 

vulnerability of stocks within the 

complex. 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 should be more 

conservative so that the more vulnerable 

members of the complex are not at risk 

from the fishery. 

(D) More than one indicator stock can 

be selected to provide more information 

about the status of the complex. 

(E) 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)(v) of this section. 

(e) Features of MSY, SDC, and OY— 

(1) MSY. Each FMP must include an 

estimate of MSY for the stocks and stock 

complexes that require conservation and 

management. MSY may also be 

specified for the fishery as a whole. 

(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 Fmsy. 

(ii) MSY for stocks. MSY should be 

estimated for each stock based on the 

best scientific information available (see 

§ 600.315). 

(iii) MSY for stock complexes. When 

stock complexes are used, MSY should 

be estimated for one or more indicator 

stocks or for the complex as a whole 

(see paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section). 

(iv) Methods of estimating MSY for an 

aggregate group of stocks. Estimating 

MSY for an aggregate group of stocks 

(including stock complexes and the 

fishery as a whole) can be done using 

models that account for multi-species 

interactions, composite properties for a 

group of similar species, common 

biomass (energy) flow and production 

patterns, or other relevant factors (see 

paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(C) of this section). 

(v) Specifying MSY. (A) Because MSY 

is a long-term average, it need not be 

estimated annually, and should be reestimated as required by changes in 

long-term environmental or ecological 

conditions, fishery technological 

characteristics, or new scientific 

information. 

(B) When data are insufficient to 

estimate MSY directly, Councils should 

adopt other measures of reproductive 

potential that can serve as reasonable 

proxies for MSY, Fmsy, and Bmsy. 

(C) The MSY for a stock or stock 

complex is influenced by its 

interactions with other stocks in its 

ecosystem and these interactions may 

shift as multiple stocks in an ecosystem 

are fished. Ecological and 

environmental information should be 

taken into account, to the extent 

practicable, when assessing stocks and 

specifying MSY. Ecological and 

environmental information that is not 

directly accounted for in the 

specification of MSY can be among the 

ecological factors considered when 

setting OY below MSY. 

(D) As MSY values are estimates or 

are based on proxies, they will have 

some level of uncertainty associated 

with them. The degree of uncertainty in 

the estimates should be identified, when 

practicable, through the stock 

assessment process and peer review (see 

§ 600.335), and should be taken into 

account when specifying the ABC 

Control rule (see paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section). 

(2) Status determination criteria—(i) 

Definitions—(A) Status determination 

criteria (SDC) mean the measurable and 

objective 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 occurs whenever a 

stock or stock complex is subjected to a 

level of fishing mortality or 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) above which 

overfishing is occurring. 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. 

(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. 

(E) Overfished. A stock or stock 

complex is considered ‘‘overfished’’ 

when its biomass has declined below 

MSST. 

(F) Depleted. An overfished stock or 

stock complex is considered depleted 

when it has not experienced overfishing 

at any point over a period of two 

generation times of the stock and its 

biomass has declined below MSST, or 

when a rebuilding stock or stock 

complex has reached its targeted time to 

rebuild and the stock’s biomass has 

shown no significant signs of growth 

despite being fished at or below catch 

levels that are consistent with the 

rebuilding plan throughout that period 

(see paragraphs (j)(3)(i)(B)(2)(i) and (j)(6) 

of this section). 

(G) Minimum stock size threshold 

(MSST) means the level of biomass 

below which the capacity of the stock or 

stock complex to produce MSY on a 

continuing basis has been jeopardized. 

(H) 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. Each FMP must 

describe how objective and measurable 

SDCs will be specified, as described in 

paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. To be measurable and objective, 

SDC must be expressed in a way that 

enables the Council to monitor the 

status of each stock or stock complex in 

the FMP. Applying the SDC set forth in 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2804 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the FMP, the Secretary determines if 

overfishing is occurring and whether the 

stock or stock complex is overfished 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e)). 

SDCs are often based on fishing rates or 

biomass levels associated with MSY or 

MSY based proxies. When data are not 

available to specify SDCs based on MSY 

or MSY proxies, alternative types of 

SDCs that promote sustainability of the 

stock or stock complex can be used. For 

example, SDC could be based on recent 

average catch, fish densities derived 

from visual census surveys, length/

weight frequencies or other methods. In 

specifying SDC, a Council must provide 

an analysis of how the SDC were chosen 

and how they relate to reproductive 

potential of stocks of fish within the 

fishery. If alternative types of SDCs are 

used, the Council should explain how 

the approach will promote 

sustainability of the stock or stock 

complex on a long term basis. A Council 

should consider a process that allows 

SDCs to be quickly updated to reflect 

the best scientific information available. 

In the case of internationally-managed 

stocks, the Council may decide to use 

the SDCs defined by the relevant 

international body. In this instance, the 

SDCs should allow the Council to 

monitor the status of a stock or stock 

complex, recognizing that the SDCs may 

not be defined in such a way that a 

Council could monitor the MFMT, OFL, 

or MSST as would be done with a 

domestically managed stock or stock 

complex. 

(A) SDC To Determine Overfishing 

Status. Each FMP must describe the 

method used to determine the 

overfishing status for each stock or stock 

complex. For domestically-managed 

stocks or stocks complexes, one of the 

following methods should be used: 

(1) Fishing Mortality Rate Exceeds 

MFMT. Exceeding the MFMT for a 

period of 1 year or exceeding a multiyear mortality reference point 

constitutes overfishing. 

(2) Catch Exceeds the OFL. Exceeding 

the annual OFL for 1 year or exceeding 

a multi-year catch reference point 

constitutes overfishing. 

(3) Use of Multi-Year Periods To 

Determine Overfishing Status. A multiyear period may not exceed three years. 

A Council may develop overfishing 

SDCs that use a multi-year approach, so 

long as it provides a comprehensive 

analysis based on the best scientific 

information available that supports that 

the approach will not jeopardize the 

capacity of the fishery to produce MSY 

on a continuing basis. A Council should 

identify in its FMP or FMP amendment 

circumstances in which the multi-year 

approach should not be used (e.g., 

because the capacity of the stock to 

produce MSY over the longer term 

could be jeopardized). 

(B) SDC to determine overfished 

status. The MSST or reasonable proxy 

must be expressed in terms of spawning 

biomass or other measure of 

reproductive potential. MSST should be 

between 1⁄2 Bmsy and Bmsy, and could be 

informed by the life history of the stock, 

the natural fluctuations in biomass 

associated with fishing at MFMT over 

the long-term, the time needed to 

rebuild to Bmsy and associated social 

and/or economic impacts on the fishery, 

the requirements of internationallymanaged stocks, or other considerations. 

(C) Where practicable, all sources of 

mortality including that resulting from 

bycatch, scientific research catch, and 

all fishing activities should be 

accounted for in the evaluation of stock 

status with respect to reference points. 

(iii) Relationship of SDC to 

environmental and habitat 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 (see also paragraph (j)(3)(i) of 

this section). SDC should not be 

respecified. 

(B) If environmental, ecosystem, or 

habitat 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’s biomass being 

below MSST, 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) Is based on the best scientific 

information available; 

(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. For stocks that 

require conservation and management, 

OY may be established at the stock, 

stock complex, or fishery level. 

(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. 

(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, an amount of 

catch that is, on average, equal to the 

Council’s specified OY; prevents 

overfishing; maintains the long term 

average biomass near or above Bmsy; and 

rebuilds overfished stocks and stock 

complexes 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. An FMP must 

contain conservation and management 

measures, including ACLs and AMs, to 

achieve OY on a continuing basis, and 

provisions for information collection 

that are designed to determine the 

degree to which OY is achieved. These 

measures should allow for practical and 

effective implementation and 

enforcement of the management regime. 

If management measures prove 

unenforceable—or too restrictive, or not 

rigorous enough to prevent overfishing 

while achieving on a continuing basis 

OY—they should be modified; an 

alternative is to reexamine the adequacy 

of the OY specification to ensure that 

the dual requirements of NS1 are met 

(preventing overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, OY). 

(iii) Assessing OY. An FMP must 

contain an assessment and specification 

of OY, which documents how the OY 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2805 

will produce the greatest benefits to the 

nation and prevent overfishing. The 

assessment should include a summary 

of information utilized in making such 

specification, consistent with 

requirements of section 303(a)(3) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

consideration of the economic, social, 

and ecological factors relevant to 

management of a particular stock, stock 

complex, or fishery. Consistent with 

Magnuson-Stevens Act section 

302(h)(5), the assessment and 

specification of OY should be reviewed 

on a continuing basis, so that it is 

responsive to changing circumstances in 

the fishery. 

(A) 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, or its proxy, to 

obtain OY are: 

(1) The benefits of food production 

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. 

(2) 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. 

(3) The benefits of protection afforded 

to marine ecosystems are those resulting 

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 productive habitat, 

maintaining the evolutionary potential 

of species and ecosystems, and 

accommodating human use. 

(B) Economic, ecological, and social 

factors. Councils should consider the 

management objectives of their FMPs 

and their management framework to 

determine the relevant social, economic, 

and ecological factors used to determine 

OY. There will be inherent trade-offs 

when determining the objectives of the 

fishery. The following is a nonexhaustive list of potential 

considerations for social, economic, and 

ecological factors. 

(1) 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 fisheryrelated 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.), and 

preference for a particular type of 

fishery (e.g., size of the fishing fleet, 

type of vessels in the fleet, permissible 

gear types). 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. 

(2) Economic factors. Examples are 

prudent consideration of the risk of 

overharvesting when a stock’s size or 

reproductive potential is uncertain (see 

§ 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. 

(3) 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 Bmsy to enhance and 

protect the marine ecosystem. Also 

important are ecological or 

environmental conditions that stress 

marine organisms or their habitat, such 

as natural and manmade changes in 

wetlands or nursery grounds, and effects 

of pollutants on habitat and stocks. 

(iv) Specifying OY. If the estimates of 

MFMT and current biomass are known 

with a high level of certainty and 

management controls can accurately 

limit catch, then OY could be set very 

close to MSY, assuming no other 

reductions are necessary for social, 

economic, or ecological factors. To the 

degree that such MSY estimates and 

management controls are lacking or 

unavailable, OY should be set farther 

from MSY. 

(A) The OY can be expressed in terms 

of numbers or weight of fish, and either 

as a single value or a range. When it is 

not possible to specify OY 

quantitatively, OY may be described 

qualitatively. 

(B) 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. 

(C) An OY established at a fishery 

level may not exceed the sum of the 

MSY values for each of the stocks or 

stocks complexes within the fishery. 

Aggregate level MSY estimates could be 

used as a basis for specifying OY for the 

fishery (see paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this 

section). When aggregate level MSY is 

estimated, single stock MSY estimates 

can also be used to inform single stock 

management. For example, OY could be 

specified for a fishery, while other 

reference points are specified for 

individual stocks in order to prevent 

overfishing on each stock within the 

fishery. 

(D) For internationally-managed 

stocks, fishing levels that are agreed 

upon by the U.S. at the international 

level are consistent with achieving OY. 

(v) 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) The OY specification is the basis 

for establishing any total allowable level 

of foreign fishing (TALFF). 

(B) Part of the OY may be held as a 

reserve to allow for 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. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2806 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(C) 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. 

(D) Domestic annual processing 

(DAP). Each FMP must assess the 

capacity of U.S. processors. It must also 

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). 

(E) Joint venture processing (JVP). 

When DAH exceeds DAP, the surplus is 

available for JVP. 

(f) Acceptable biological catch and 

annual catch limits—(1) 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, which is based on an ABC 

control rule that accounts for the 

scientific uncertainty in the estimate of 

OFL, any other scientific uncertainty, 

and the Council’s risk policy. 

(iii) Annual catch limit (ACL) is a 

limit on the total annual catch of a stock 

or stock complex, which cannot exceed 

the ABC, that serves as the basis for 

invoking AMs. An ACL may be divided 

into sector-ACLs (see paragraph (f)(4) of 

this section). 

(iv) Control rule is a policy for 

establishing a limit or target catch level 

that is based on the best scientific 

information available and is established 

by the Council in consultation with its 

SSC. 

(v) Management uncertainty refers to 

uncertainty in the ability of managers to 

constrain catch so that the ACL is not 

exceeded, and the uncertainty in 

quantifying the true catch amounts (i.e., 

estimation errors). The sources of 

management uncertainty could include: 

late catch reporting; misreporting; 

underreporting of catches; lack of 

sufficient inseason management, 

including inseason closure authority; or 

other factors. 

(vi) Scientific uncertainty refers to 

uncertainty in the information about a 

stock and its reference points. Sources 

of scientific uncertainty could include: 

uncertainty in stock assessment results; 

uncertainty in the estimates of MFMT, 

MSST, the biomass of the stock, and 

OFL; time lags in updating assessments; 

the degree of retrospective revision of 

assessment results; uncertainty in 

projections; uncertainties due to the 

choice of assessment model; longer-term 

uncertainties due to potential ecosystem 

and environmental effects; or other 

factors. 

(2) ABC control rule—(i) For stocks 

and stock complexes required to have 

an ABC, each Council must establish an 

ABC control rule that accounts for 

scientific uncertainty in the OFL and 

the Council’s risk policy. The Council’s 

risk policy could be based, on an 

acceptable probability (at least 50 

percent) that catch equal to the stock’s 

ABC will not result in overfishing, but 

other appropriate methods can be used. 

When determining the risk policy, 

Councils could consider the economic, 

social, and ecological trade-offs between 

being more or less risk averse. The 

Council’s choice of a risk policy cannot 

result in an ABC that exceeds the OFL. 

The process of establishing an ABC 

control rule may involve science 

advisors or the peer review process 

established under Magnuson-Stevens 

Act section 302(g)(1)(E). 

(ii) The ABC control rule must 

articulate how ABC will be set 

compared to the OFL based on the 

scientific knowledge about the stock or 

stock complex and taking into account 

scientific uncertainty (see paragraph 

(f)(1)(vi) of this section). The ABC 

control rule should consider reducing 

fishing mortality as stock size declines 

below Bmsy and as scientific uncertainty 

increases, and may establish a stock 

abundance level below which directed 

fishing would not be allowed. When 

scientific uncertainty cannot be directly 

calculated, such as when proxies are 

used, then a proxy for the uncertainty 

itself should be established based on the 

best scientific information, including 

comparison to other stocks. The control 

rule may be used in a tiered approach 

to address different levels of scientific 

uncertainty. Councils can develop ABC 

control rules that allow for changes in 

catch limits to be phased-in over time or 

to account for the carry-over of some of 

the unused portion of the ACL from one 

year to the next; in which case, the 

Council must provide a comprehensive 

analysis and articulate within their FMP 

when the control rule can and cannot be 

used and how the control rule prevents 

overfishing. 

(A) Phase-in ABC control rules. Large 

changes in catch limits due to new 

scientific information about the status of 

the stock can have negative short-term 

effects on a fishing industry. To help 

stabilize catch levels as stock 

assessments are updated, a Council may 

choose to develop a control rule that 

phases in changes to ABC over a period 

of time, not to exceed 3 years, as long 

as overfishing is prevented. 

(B) Carry-over ABC control rules. An 

ABC control rule may include 

provisions for carry-over of some of the 

unused portion of the ACL from one 

year to increase the ABC for the next 

year, based on the increased stock 

abundance resulting from the fishery 

harvesting less than the full ACL. The 

resulting ABC recommended by the SSC 

must prevent overfishing and consider 

scientific uncertainty consistent with 

the Council’s risk policy. In cases where 

an ACL has been reduced from the ABC, 

carry-over provisions may not require 

the ABC to be re-specified if the ACL 

can be adjusted upwards so that it is 

equal to or below the existing ABC. 

(3) Specification of ABC. ABC may 

not exceed OFL (see paragraph 

(e)(2)(i)(D) of this section). Councils and 

their SSC should develop a process by 

which the SSC can access the best 

scientific information available 

regarding implementation of the ABC 

control rule. An SSC may recommend 

an ABC that differs from the result of 

the ABC control rule calculation, based 

on factors such as data uncertainty, 

recruitment variability, declining trends 

in population variables, and other 

factors, but must provide an explanation 

for the deviation. For Secretarial FMPs 

or 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 if stocks fall under the 

international exception (see paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii) of this section). While the ABC 

is allowed to equal OFL, NMFS expects 

that in most cases ABC will be reduced 

from OFL to reduce the probability that 

overfishing might occur in a year. 

(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 schedule of fishing mortality rates 

(i.e., Frebuild) in the rebuilding plan. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2807 

(4) Setting the annual catch limit—(i) 

General. ACL cannot exceed the ABC 

and may be set annually or on a 

multiyear plan basis. ACLs in 

coordination with AMs must prevent 

overfishing (see MSA section 

303(a)(15)). If an Annual Catch Target 

(ACT) is not used, management 

uncertainty should be accounted for in 

the ACL. If a Council recommends an 

ACL which equals ABC, and the ABC is 

equal to OFL, the Secretary may 

presume that the proposal would not 

prevent overfishing, in the absence of 

sufficient analysis and justification for 

the approach. 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 must include a 

mechanism for specifying ACLs 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. A 

multiyear plan must provide that, if an 

ACL is exceeded for a year, then AMs 

are implemented for the next year 

consistent with paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 

(ii) Sector-ACLs. A Council may, but 

is not required to, divide an ACL into 

sector-ACLs. If sector-ACLs are used, 

sector-AMs should also be specified. 

‘‘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. If the 

management measures for different 

sectors differ in the degree of 

management uncertainty, then sectorACLs may be necessary so that 

appropriate AMs can be developed for 

each sector. If a Council chooses to use 

sector-ACLs, 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 in 

protecting the stock or stock complex as 

a whole. Even if sector-ACLs and AMs 

are established, additional AMs at the 

stock or stock complex level may be 

necessary. 

(iii) ACLs for State-Federal Fisheries. 

For stocks or stock complexes that have 

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 is limited to the portion of 

the fishery under Federal authority. See 

16 U.S.C. 1856. When stocks are comanaged 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 (including AMs 

for state or territorial and Federal 

waters), to prevent overfishing of shared 

stocks and ensure their sustainability. 

(iv) Relationship between OY and the 

ACL framework. The dual goals of NS1 

are to prevent overfishing and achieve 

on a continuing basis OY. The ABC is 

an upper limit on catch and is designed 

to prevent overfishing. As described in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section, 

ecological, economic, and social factors, 

as well as values associated with 

determining the greatest benefit to the 

Nation, are important considerations in 

specifying OY. These OY considerations 

can also be considered in the ACL 

framework. For example, an ACL (or 

ACT) could be set lower than the ABC 

to account for OY considerations (e.g., 

needs of forage fish, promoting stability, 

addressing market conditions, etc.). 

Additionally, economic, social, or 

ecological trade-offs could be evaluated 

when determining the risk policy for an 

ABC control rule (see paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section). While OY is a long-term 

average amount of desired yield, there 

is, for each year, an amount of fish that 

is consistent with achieving the longterm OY. A Council can choose to 

express OY on an annual basis, in 

which case the FMP or FMP amendment 

should indicate that the OY is an 

‘‘annual OY.’’ An annual OY cannot 

exceed the ACL. 

(g) Accountability measures (AMs)— 

(1) Introduction. AMs are management 

controls to prevent ACLs, including 

sector-ACLs, from being exceeded, and 

to correct or mitigate overages of the 

ACL 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. NMFS 

identifies two categories of AMs, 

inseason AMs and AMs for when the 

ACL is exceeded. The FMP should 

identify what sources of data will be 

used to implement AMs (e.g., inseason 

data, annual catch compared to the 

ACL, or multi-year averaging approach). 

(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: an annual catch target (see 

paragraph (g)(4) of this section); 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. 

FMPs should contain inseason closure 

authority giving NMFS the ability to 

close fisheries if it determines, based on 

data that it deems sufficiently reliable, 

that an ACL has been exceeded or is 

projected to be reached, and that closure 

of the fishery is necessary to prevent 

overfishing. For fisheries without 

inseason management control to prevent 

the ACL from being exceeded, AMs 

should utilize ACTs that are set below 

ACLs so that catches do not exceed the 

ACL. 

(3) AMs for when the ACL is 

exceeded. On an annual basis, the 

Council must determine as soon as 

possible after the fishing year if an ACL 

was exceeded. If an ACL was exceeded, 

AMs must be 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, the use 

or modification of ACTs, or overage 

adjustments. The type of AM chosen by 

a Council will likely vary depending on 

the sector of the fishery, status of the 

stock, the degree of the overage, 

recruitment patterns of the stock, or 

other pertinent information. If an ACL is 

set equal to zero and the AM for the 

fishery is a closure that prohibits fishing 

for a stock, additional AMs are not 

required if only small amounts of catch 

or bycatch occur, and the catch or 

bycatch is unlikely to result in 

overfishing. 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 overage, unless 

the best scientific information available 

shows that a reduced overage 

adjustment, or no adjustment, is needed 

to mitigate the effects of the overage. 

(4) Annual Catch Target (ACT) and 

ACT control rule. ACTs are 

recommended in the system of AMs so 

that ACL is not exceeded. An ACT is an 

amount of annual catch of a stock or 

stock complex that is the management 

target of the fishery, and accounts for 

management uncertainty in controlling 

the catch at or below the ACL. ACT 

control rules can be used to articulate 

how management uncertainty is 

accounted for in setting the ACT. ACT 

control rules can be developed by the 

Council, in coordination with the SSC, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2808 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

to help the Council account for 

management uncertainty. 

(5) 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, 

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. Councils 

should explain why basing AMs on a 

multi-year period is appropriate. 

Evaluation of the moving average catch 

to the average ACL must be conducted 

annually, and if the average catch 

exceeds the average ACL, appropriate 

AMs should be implemented consistent 

with paragraph (g)(3) of this section. 

(6) AMs for State-Federal fisheries. 

For stocks or stock complexes that have 

harvest in state or territorial waters, 

FMPs and FMP amendments must, at a 

minimum, have AMs for the portion of 

the fishery under Federal authority. 

Such AMs 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. 

(7) Performance standard. If catch 

exceeds the ACL for a given stock or 

stock complex more than once in the 

last four years, the system of ACLs and 

AMs should be reevaluated, and 

modified if necessary, to improve its 

performance and effectiveness. If AMs 

are based on multi-year average data, 

the performance standard is based on a 

comparison of the average catch to the 

average ACL. 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, 

if the vulnerability of the stock has not 

already been accounted for in the ABC 

control rule. 

(h) Establishing ACL mechanisms and 

AMs in FMPs. FMPs or FMP 

amendments must establish ACL 

mechanisms and AMs for all stocks and 

stock complexes that require 

conservation and management (see 

§ 600.305(c)), unless paragraph (h)(1) of 

this section is applicable. These 

mechanisms should describe the annual 

or multiyear process by which ACLs, 

AMs, and other reference points such as 

OFL, and ABC will be established. 

(1) 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 

age of spawners in the population is 

approximately 1 year or less. While 

exempt from the ACL and AM 

requirements, FMPs or FMP 

amendments for these stocks must have 

SDC, MSY, OY, ABC, and an ABC 

control rule. 

(ii) International fishery agreements. 

Section 303(a)(15) of the MagnusonStevens 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 MagnusonStevens Act section 3(24)). These stocks 

would still need to have SDC, MSY, and 

OY. 

(2) 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 

Endangered Species Act listed species, 

harvests from aquaculture operations, 

stocks with unusual life history 

characteristics (e.g., Pacific salmon, 

where the spawning potential is 

concentrated in one year), and stocks for 

which data are not available either to set 

reference points based on MSY or MSY 

proxies, or manage to reference points 

based on MSY or MSY proxies. In these 

circumstances, Councils may propose 

alternative approaches for satisfying 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act other than those set forth in these 

guidelines. Councils must document 

their rationale for any alternative 

approaches in an FMP or FMP 

amendment, which will be reviewed for 

consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. 

(i) Fisheries data. In their FMPs, or 

associated public documents such as 

SAFE reports as appropriate, Councils 

must describe general data collection 

methods, as well as any specific data 

collection methods used for all stocks 

and stock complexes in their FMPs, 

including: 

(1) Sources of fishing mortality (both 

landed and discarded), including 

commercial and recreational catch and 

bycatch in other fisheries; 

(2) Description of 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) Description of 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 require 

conservation and management. 

(j) Council actions to address 

overfishing and rebuilding for stocks 

and stock complexes—(1) Notification. 

The Secretary will immediately notify 

in writing a Regional Fishery 

Management 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. Upon notification that a 

stock or stock complex is undergoing 

overfishing, a Council should 

immediately begin working with its SSC 

(or agency scientists or peer review 

processes in the case of Secretariallymanaged fisheries) to ensure that the 

ABC is set appropriately to end 

overfishing. Councils should evaluate 

the cause of overfishing, address the 

issue that caused overfishing, and 

reevaluate their ACLs and AMs to make 

sure they are adequate. 

(ii) If a stock or stock complex is 

overfished or approaching an overfished 

condition. Upon notification that a stock 

or stock complex is overfished or 

approaching an overfished condition, a 

Council must prepare and implement an 

FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed 

regulations within two years of 

notification, consistent with the 

requirements of section 304(e)(3) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Council actions 

should be submitted to NMFS within 15 

months of notification to ensure 

sufficient time for the Secretary to 

implement the measures, if approved. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2809 

(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 MagnusonStevens Act section 304(e)(4). This 

target time for rebuilding (Ttarget) 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 

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 MagnusonStevens Act section 302(g)(1)(B)). The 

above factors enter into the specification 

of Ttarget as follows: 

(A) The minimum time for rebuilding 

a stock (Tmin). Tmin 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 

Bmsy, where such probabilities can be 

calculated. The starting year for the Tmin

calculation should be the first year that 

the rebuilding plan is expected to be 

implemented. 

(B) The maximum time for rebuilding 

a stock or stock complex to its Bmsy

(Tmax). (1) If Tmin for the stock or stock 

complex is 10 years or less, then Tmax

is 10 years. 

(2) If Tmin for the stock or stock 

complex exceeds 10 years, then one of 

the following methods can be used to 

determine Tmax: 

(i) Tmin 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, 

(ii) The amount of time the stock or 

stock complex is expected to take to 

rebuild to Bmsy if fished at 75 percent of 

MFMT, or 

(iii) Tmin multiplied by two. 

(3) When selecting a method for 

determining Tmax, a Council must 

provide a rationale for its decision based 

on the best scientific information 

available. 

(C) Target time to rebuilding a stock 

or stock complex (Ttarget). Ttarget is the 

specified time period for rebuilding a 

stock that is considered to be in as short 

a time as possible, while taking into 

account the factors described in 

paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section. Ttarget

shall not exceed Tmax, and the fishing 

mortality associated with achieving 

Ttarget is referred to as Frebuild. 

(ii) Council action addressing an 

overfished fishery must allocate both 

overfishing restrictions and recovery 

benefits fairly and equitably among 

sectors of the fishery. 

(iii) 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. 

(iv) Adequate Progress. The Secretary 

shall review rebuilding plans at routine 

intervals that may not exceed two years 

to determine whether the plans have 

resulted in adequate progress toward 

ending overfishing and rebuilding 

affected fish stocks (MSA section 

304(e)(7)). Such reviews could include 

the review of recent stock assessments, 

comparisons of catches to the ACL, or 

other appropriate performance 

measures. The Secretary may find that 

adequate progress is not being made if 

Frebuild or the ACL associated with Frebuild

are exceeded, and AMs are not 

correcting the operational issue that 

caused the overage and addressing any 

biological consequences to the stock or 

stock complex resulting from the 

overage when it is known (see 

paragraph (g)(3) of this section). A lack 

of adequate progress may also be found 

when the rebuilding expectations of a 

stock or stock complex are significantly 

changed due to new and unexpected 

information about the status of the 

stock. If a determination is made under 

this provision, the Secretary will notify 

the appropriate Council and recommend 

further conservation and management 

measures, and the Council must develop 

and implement a new or revised 

rebuilding plan within two years (see 

MSA sections 304(e)(3) and (e)(7)(B)). 

For Secretarially-managed fisheries, the 

Secretary would take immediate action 

necessary to achieve adequate progress 

toward ending overfishing and 

rebuilding. 

(v) While a stock or stock complex is 

rebuilding, revising rebuilding 

timeframes (i.e., Ttarget and Tmax) or 

Frebuild is not necessary, unless the 

Secretary finds that adequate progress is 

not being made. 

(vi) If a stock or stock complex has not 

rebuilt by Tmax, then the fishing 

mortality rate should be maintained at 

its current Frebuild or 75 percent of the 

MFMT, whichever is less, until the 

stock or stock complex is rebuilt or the 

Secretary finds that adequate progress is 

not being made. 

(4) Emergency actions and interim 

measures. If a Council is developing a 

rebuilding plan or revising an existing 

rebuilding plan due to a lack of 

adequate progress (see MSA section 

304(e)(7)), the Secretary may, in 

response to a Council request, 

implement interim measures that 

reduce, but do not necessarily end, 

overfishing (see MSA section 304(e)(6)) 

if all of the following criteria are met: 

(i) The interim measures are needed 

to address an unanticipated and 

significantly changed understanding of 

the status of the stock or stock complex; 

(ii) Ending overfishing immediately is 

expected to result in severe social and/ 

or economic impacts to a fishery; and 

(iii) The interim measures will ensure 

that the stock or stock complex will 

increase its current biomass through the 

duration of the interim measures. 

(5) Discontinuing a rebuilding plan 

based on new scientific information. A 

Council may discontinue a rebuilding 

plan for a stock or stock complex before 

it reaches Bmsy, if all of the following 

criteria are met: 

(i) The Secretary determines that the 

stock was not overfished in the year that 

the overfished determination (see MSA 

section 304(e)(3)) was based on; and 

(ii) The biomass of the stock is not 

currently below the MSST. 

(6) Management measures for 

depleted stocks. In cases where an 

overfished stock or stock complex is 

considered to be ‘‘depleted’’ (see 

paragraph (e)(2)(i)(F) of this section), a 

Council may identify in its rebuilding 

plan additional management measures 

or initiatives that could improve the 

status of the stock, such as: reevaluating 

SDCs to determine if they are 

representative of current environmental 

conditions, recommending the 

restoration of habitat and other 

ameliorative programs, identifying 

research priorities to improve the 

Councils understanding of the 

impediments to rebuilding, or 

partnering with Federal and state 

agencies to address non-fishing related 

impacts. 

(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 MagnusonStevens Act section 304(i). The 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2810 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Secretary, in cooperation with the 

Secretary of State, must 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)(iii) 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 MagnusonStevens 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 must be based upon the best 

available scientific information. 

(l) Relationship of National Standard 

1 to other national standards—General. 

National Standards 2 through 10 

provide further requirements for 

conservation and management measures 

in FMPs (see MSA section 301(a)), and 

guidelines for these standards are 

provided in §§ 600.315 through 600.355. 

Below is a description of how some of 

the other National Standards intersect 

with National Standard 1. 

(1) National Standard 2 (see 

§ 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)(v)(B) 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 available for 

fishery management decisions. 

(2) National Standard 3 (see 

§ 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 paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (iii) of 

this section). 

(3) National Standard 6 (see 

§ 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 

§ 600.345). National Standard 8 

addresses economic and social 

considerations and minimizing to the 

extent practicable adverse economic 

impacts on fishing communities within 

the context of preventing overfishing 

and rebuilding overfished stocks as 

required under National Standard 1. 

Calculation of OY as reduced from MSY 

also includes consideration of economic 

and social factors, but the combination 

of management measures chosen to 

achieve the OY must principally be 

designed to prevent overfishing and 

rebuild overfished stocks. 

(5) National Standard 9 (see 

§ 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 fishery is not overfished and the 

analysis demonstrates that all of the 

following conditions are satisfied: 

(1) Such action will result in longterm 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. 

■ 4. Section 600.320 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 600.320 National Standard 3— 

Management Units. 

(a) Standard 3. To the extent 

practicable, an individual stock of fish 

shall be managed as a unit throughout 

its range, and interrelated stocks of fish 

shall be managed as a unit or in close 

coordination. 

(b) General. The purpose of this 

standard is to induce a comprehensive 

approach to fishery management. The 

geographic scope of the fishery, for 

planning purposes, should cover the 

entire range of the stocks(s) of fish, and 

not be overly constrained by political 

boundaries. Wherever practicable, an 

FMP should seek to manage interrelated 

stocks of fish. 

(c) Unity of management. Cooperation 

and understanding among entities 

concerned with the fishery (e.g., 

Councils, states, Federal Government, 

international commissions, foreign 

nations) are vital to effective 

management. Where management of a 

fishery involves multiple jurisdictions, 

coordination among the several entities 

should be sought in the development of 

an FMP. Where a range overlaps 

Council areas, one FMP to cover the 

entire range is preferred. The Secretary 

designates which Council(s) will 

prepare the FMP (see section 304(f) of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

(d) Management unit. The term 

‘‘management unit’’ means a fishery or 

that portion of a fishery identified in an 

FMP as relevant to the FMP’s 

management objectives. Stocks in the 

fishery management unit are considered 

to be in need of conservation and 

management (see § 600.305(c)). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2811 

(1) Basis. The choice of a management 

unit depends on the focus of the FMP’s 

objectives, and may be organized 

around biological, geographic, 

economic, technical, social, or 

ecological perspectives. 

(2) Conservation and management 

measures. FMPs should include 

conservation and management measures 

for that part of the management unit 

within U.S. waters, although the 

Secretary can ordinarily implement 

them only within the EEZ. The 

measures need not be identical for each 

geographic area within the management 

unit, if the FMP justifies the differences. 

A management unit may contain stocks 

of fish for which there is not enough 

information available to specify MSY 

and OY or their proxies. 

(e) Analysis. An FMP should include 

discussion of the following: 

(1) The range and distribution of the 

stocks, as well as the patterns of fishing 

effort and harvest. 

(2) Alternative management units and 

reasons for selecting a particular one. A 

less-than-comprehensive management 

unit may be justified if, for example, 

complementary management exists or is 

planned for a separate geographic area 

or for a distinct use of the stocks, or if 

the unmanaged portion of the resource 

is immaterial to proper management. 

(3) Management activities and habitat 

programs of adjacent states and their 

effects on the FMP’s objectives and 

management measures. Where state 

action is necessary to implement 

measures within state waters to achieve 

FMP objectives, the FMP should 

identify what state action is necessary, 

discuss the consequences of state 

inaction or contrary action, and make 

appropriate recommendations. The FMP 

should also discuss the impact that 

Federal regulations will have on state 

management activities. 

(4) Management activities of other 

countries having an impact on the 

fishery, and how the FMP’s 

management measures are designed to 

take into account these impacts. 

International boundaries may be dealt 

with in several ways. For example: 

(i) By limiting the management unit’s 

scope to that portion of the stock found 

in U.S. waters; 

(ii) By estimating MSY for the entire 

stock and then basing the determination 

of OY for the U.S. fishery on the portion 

of the stock within U.S. waters; or 

(iii) By referring to treaties or 

cooperative agreements. 

■ 5. Section 600.340 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 600.340 National Standard 7—Costs and 

Benefits. 

(a) Standard 7. Conservation and 

management measures shall, where 

practicable, minimize costs and avoid 

unnecessary duplication. 

(b) Alternative management 

measures. Management measures 

should not impose unnecessary burdens 

on the economy, on individuals, on 

private or public organizations, or on 

Federal, state, or local governments. 

Factors such as fuel costs, enforcement 

costs, or the burdens of collecting data 

may well suggest a preferred alternative. 

(c) Analysis. The supporting analyses 

for FMPs should demonstrate that the 

benefits of fishery regulation are real 

and substantial relative to the added 

research, administrative, and 

enforcement costs, as well as costs to 

the industry of compliance. In 

determining the benefits and costs of 

management measures, each 

management strategy considered and its 

impacts on different user groups in the 

fishery should be evaluated. This 

requirement need not produce an 

elaborate, formalistic cost/benefit 

analysis. Rather, an evaluation of effects 

and costs, especially of differences 

among workable alternatives, including 

the status quo, is adequate. If 

quantitative estimates are not possible, 

qualitative estimates will suffice. 

(1) Burdens. Management measures 

should be designed to give fishermen 

the greatest possible freedom of action 

in conducting business and pursuing 

recreational opportunities that are 

consistent with ensuring wise use of the 

resources and reducing conflict in the 

fishery. The type and level of burden 

placed on user groups by the regulations 

need to be identified. Such an 

examination should include, for 

example: Capital outlays; operating and 

maintenance costs; reporting costs; 

administrative, enforcement, and 

information costs; and prices to 

consumers. Management measures may 

shift costs from one level of government 

to another, from one part of the private 

sector to another, or from the 

government to the private sector. 

Redistribution of costs through 

regulations is likely to generate 

controversy. A discussion of these and 

any other burdens placed on the public 

through FMP regulations should be a 

part of the FMP’s supporting analyses. 

(2) Gains. The relative distribution of 

gains may change as a result of 

instituting different sets of alternatives, 

as may the specific type of gain. The 

analysis of benefits should focus on the 

specific gains produced by each 

alternative set of management measures, 

including the status quo. The benefits to 

society that result from the alternative 

management measures should be 

identified, and the level of gain 

assessed. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00586 Filed 1–15–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2