[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41907-41920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20588]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. 970708168-7168-01; I.D. 061697B]
RIN 0648-AJ58
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard Guidelines
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes revisions to the guidelines for national
standards 1 (optimum yield), 2 (scientific information), 4
(allocations), 5 (efficiency), and 7 (costs and benefits); and adds
guidelines for new national standards 8 (communities), 9 (bycatch), and
10 (safety of life at sea). The guidelines are intended to assist in
the development and review of Fishery Management Plans (FMPs),
amendments, and regulations prepared by the Regional Fishery Management
Councils (Councils) and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). The proposed revisions and additions implement the
October 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which resulted
from the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). Additional minor changes are
made to conform national standard guideline language to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, as amended.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Dr. Gary C. Matlock, F/SF, NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George H. Darcy, 301-713-2341.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 11, 1996, the President signed
into law the SFA (Public Law 104-297), which made numerous amendments
to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). This proposed
rule amend 50 CFR part 600, subpart D, to update the national standard
guidelines and to implement some of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
amendments.
Background
Section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act contains 10 national
standards for fishery conservation and management, with which all FMPs
and amendments prepared by the Councils and the Secretary must comply.
Section 303(b) requires that the Secretary establish advisory
guidelines, based on the national standards, to assist in the
development of FMPs. The SFA established three new national standards,
which require consideration of impacts of fishery management decisions
on fishing communities (national standard 8), bycatch (national
standard 9), and safety of life at sea (national standard 10). This
proposed rule would add those standards and associated guidelines to
subpart D of 50 CFR part 600. Other provisions of the SFA necessitate
significant revisions to the guidelines for national standard 1
(optimum yield), as proposed in this rule. Minor revisions to national
standards 2 (scientific information), 4 (allocations), and 5
(efficiency) are also proposed to conform those standards and their
guidelines to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended. Additional
technical changes would be made to Sec. 600.305 (general) and to
guidelines for national standards 3 (management units)(Sec. 600.320)
and 7 (costs and benefits)(Sec. 600.340) to update terminology.
The proposed guidelines explain requirements and provide some
options for compliance with the guidelines. Lists and examples are not
all inclusive; rather, they are intended to provide illustrations of
the kind of information, discussion, or examination/analysis useful in
demonstrating consistency with the standard in question. The proposed
guidelines are intended to provide for reasonable accommodation of
regional or individual fishery characteristics, provided that the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are met. The guidelines are
intended as an aid to decisionmaking, with responsible conservation and
management of valued national resources as the goal. The proposed
revisions and additions are described below.
General
The new and revised national standards apply to all FMPs and
implementing regulations, existing and future. However, as Congress
recognized by allowing the Councils 2 years from enactment (i.e., until
October 11, 1998) to submit FMP amendments to comply with the related
new requirements in section 303(a), it will take considerable time and
effort to bring all FMPs into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
For example, national standard 9 requires that management measures
minimize bycatch, but section 303(a)(11), which states exactly the same
requirement, need not be fully implemented in all FMPs until October
1998; NMFS will therefore not expect full compliance with standard 9
until that date. Once issued in final, NMFS will use these guidelines
to review all new FMPs and amendments to determine whether they comply
with the new and revised national standards. The Councils should review
existing FMPs for compliance with the new and revised national
standards and submit necessary amendments by October 11, 1998.
The main purpose of the guidelines is to aid the Councils in
fulfilling the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the context
of preparing an FMP or FMP amendment, the guidelines typically address
only the Councils'
[[Page 41908]]
responsibilities, even though the Secretary has similar
responsibilities in developing Secretarial FMPs or amendments to
Secretarial FMPs (sections 304(c) and 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act). A new definition for ``Council'' would be added to Sec. 600.305
to include the Secretary, as applicable, when preparing FMPs or
amendments under section 304(c) and (g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
for efficiency of language and consistency throughout the national
standard guidelines.
The proposed guidelines seek as much precision as possible in the
use of the words ``should'' and ``must.'' ``Must'' is used to denote an
obligation to act and is used primarily when referring to requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the logical extension thereof, or other
applicable law. ``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 that
reviewers will look for in evaluating an FMP. Definitions of ``must''
and ``should'' in Sec. 600.305 would be revised to reflect current
terminology. A definition for ``stock or stock complex'' would be added
to Sec. 600.305 to clarify use of that term and the term ``fishery,''
as used throughout the national standard guidelines.
National Standard 1
National standard 1 guidelines were last revised in July 1989; that
revision focused on establishing a conservation standard, with the
requirement that specific, objective, and measurable definitions of
overfishing be established for each fishery managed under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (then called the Magnuson Act). By 1993, more than 100 such
definitions had been approved by NMFS. At that time, NMFS convened a
panel of scientists from inside and outside the agency to review the
approved definitions, investigate their strengths and shortcomings, and
standardize, as much as possible, the criteria and basis for future
evaluations of overfishing definitions. The goal of the review was to
develop a scientific consensus as to the appropriateness of the
definitions and the criteria used in their evaluation. The resulting
analysis and report (Rosenberg et al., 1994) provided a set of
scientific principles for defining overfishing. However, these
principles were not incorporated into the national standard guidelines.
The SFA introduced or revised definitions for a number of terms and
introduced several new requirements for contents of FMPs. As a
consequence of the 1994 report and the statutory amendments, revisions
to the national standard 1 guidelines are proposed in this rule, as
described below.
Overview of Issues
Revisions to the guidelines for national standard 1 center on the
Magnuson-Stevens Act's definitions of ``overfishing,'' ``overfished,''
and ``optimum yield (OY);'' the requirement for the establishment of
objective and measurable criteria for determining the status of a stock
or stock complex; and the requirement for remedial action in the event
that overfishing is occurring or that a stock or stock complex is
overfished.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, in section 3(29), defines both
``overfishing'' and ``overfished'' as a rate or level of fishing
mortality that jeopardizes a fishery's capacity to produce maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis. Neither term was defined
statutorily, prior to passage of the SFA. The existing national
standard guidelines define overfishing somewhat differently, by
qualifying ``capacity'' with the phrase ``long-term,'' and do not
include a definition of ``overfished.'' The Magnuson-Stevens Act, in
section 3(28), defines OY as the amount of fish that: (1) 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; (2) is prescribed on the
basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic,
social, or ecological factors; and (3) in the case of an overfished
fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing
the MSY in such fishery. The main changes relative to the pre-SFA
definition include the requirements that OY take into account
protection of marine ecosystems, that OY be no greater than MSY, and
that OY for an overfished fishery allow rebuilding to the MSY level.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, in section 303(a)(10), requires each FMP
to specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the
fishery to which the FMP applies is overfished (also referred to as
``criteria for overfishing''), with an analysis of how the criteria
were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the
reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act also requires, in section 304(e), the Secretary to report
annually to Congress and the Councils on the status of fisheries within
each Council's geographical area of authority and identify those
fisheries that are overfished or are approaching a condition of being
overfished. For each fishery managed under an FMP or international
agreement, the status is to be determined using the criteria for
overfishing specified in that FMP or agreement. A fishery is to be
classified as approaching a condition of being overfished if, based on
trends in fishing effort, fishery resource size, and other appropriate
factors, the Secretary estimates that it will become overfished within
2 years.
If the Secretary determines at any time that a fishery is
overfished or approaching an overfished condition or that existing
remedial action taken for the purpose of ending any previously
identified overfishing has not resulted in adequate progress, the
Secretary must notify the Council and request that remedial action be
taken. Section 304(e)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the
Council then, within 1 year of notification, prepare an FMP, FMP
amendment, or proposed regulations for the purposes of ending (or
preventing) overfishing and rebuilding (or sustaining) affected stocks
of fish.
Overview of Approach
In developing the proposed revised guidelines, policy guidance was
taken from the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. Because
the guidelines deal with technical subject matter, guidance was also
taken from the scientific literature. In particular, the report by
Rosenberg et al. (1994) was used to the extent that it is consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
Overview of Policy and Rationale
Sustainability
Sustainable fisheries is a key theme within the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. The idea of sustainability is inherent in MSY, a quantity that is
central to the Magnuson-Stevens Act's definitions of both overfishing
and OY. Closely related to the idea of sustainability is the phrase
``on a continuing basis,'' which is used both in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act's definition of overfishing and in national standard 1. The
appropriate interpretation of sustainability or the phrase ``on a
continuing basis'' is the one generally accepted in the fishery science
literature, which relates to an average stock level and/or average
potential yield from a stock over a long period of time.
It is important to distinguish between the theoretical concept of
MSY as an unconditional maximum independent of management practice, and
actual estimates of MSY, which are necessarily
[[Page 41909]]
conditional on some type of (perhaps hypothetical) management practice.
Specifically, the proposed guidelines, in Sec. 600.310(c), describe the
role of ``control rules'' in estimating MSY, where an MSY control rule
is any harvest strategy that, if implemented, would be expected to
result in a long-term average catch close to MSY. A Council could
choose an MSY control rule in which fishing mortality is held constant
over time at an appropriate rate, one in which escapement is held
constant over time at an appropriate level, or some other control rule,
so long as that control rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act's definition of overfishing is
expressed in terms of a stock's capacity to produce MSY on a continuing
basis, nothing in the Magnuson-Stevens Act implies that such
production, in the form of harvest, must actually occur. That is, a
stock does not actually need to produce MSY on a continuing basis in
order to have the capacity to do so.
Use of the Terms ``Overfishing'' and ``Overfished''
The relationship between the terms ``overfishing'' and
``overfished'' can be confusing. As used in the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
the verb ``to overfish'' means to fish at a rate or level that
jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on
a continuing basis. ``Overfishing,'' then, occurs whenever a stock or
stock complex is subjected to any such rate or level of fishing
mortality. Interpreting the term ``overfished'' is more complicated. In
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this term is used in two senses: First, to
describe any stock or stock complex that is subjected to overfishing;
and second, to describe any stock or stock complex for which a change
in management practices is required in order to achieve an appropriate
level and rate of rebuilding. (See, for example, section 303(a)(1)(A)
and section 304(e)(1)) To avoid confusion, the proposed guidelines use
``overfished'' in the second sense only. Both terms would be defined in
Sec. 600.310(d).
Status Determination Criteria
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, in section 303(a)(10), requires that each
FMP specify objective and measurable criteria (status determination
criteria) for identifying when stocks or stock complexes covered by the
FMP are overfished. To fulfill the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
such status determination criteria are comprised of two components: A
maximum fishing mortality threshold and a minimum stock size threshold
(see Sec. 600.310(d)(2)). The maximum fishing mortality threshold
should be set at the fishing mortality rate or level defined by the
chosen MSY control rule. The minimum stock size threshold should be set
at one-half the MSY level, or the minimum stock size at which
rebuilding to the MSY level would be expected to occur within 10 years
if the stock or stock complex were exploited at the maximum fishing
mortality threshold, whichever is greater. When data are insufficient
to estimate any of these quantities, use of reasonable proxies would be
required.
It is important to note that, even if no minimum stock size
threshold were set, the maximum fishing mortality threshold would
define a minimum limit on the rate of rebuilding for a stock that falls
below its MSY level. The reason for requiring a minimum stock size
threshold in addition to a maximum fishing mortality threshold is to
define the point at which this minimum rebuilding rate is no longer
prudent. For example, in the case of a slow-growing stock, a rebuilding
rate that satisfies the statutory deadline of 10 years would be
considered prudent management. However, for a fast-growing stock, it
might be possible to fall to an extremely low level of abundance and
still rebuild to the MSY level within 10 years, which would not be
considered prudent management. Thus, the definition of the minimum
stock size threshold includes a constraint, equal to one-half the MSY
level, to ensure that the 10-year allowance is not abused in the case
of fast-growing stocks.
Choosing an MSY control rule is thus key to satisfying national
standard 1, because it defines the maximum fishing mortality threshold
and plays a role in defining the minimum stock size threshold. Any MSY
control rule defines a relationship between fishing mortality rate and
stock size. This relationship is the maximum fishing mortality
threshold, which may be a single number or a mathematical function. In
addition, any MSY control rule defines a rate of rebuilding for stocks
that are below the level that would produce MSY. The smallest stock
size at which rebuilding to the level that would produce MSY is
achieved within 10 years defines the minimum stock size threshold for
that rule, unless such a stock size is less than one-half the MSY
level. The MSY control rule also defines an upper bound on any OY
control rule that might be specified.
The proposed status determination criteria in Sec. 600.310(d)(2)
would play a fundamental role in developing the Secretary's annual
report to Congress and the Councils, as required by section 304(e) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under the proposed guidelines, the
Secretary's annual report would list all stocks or stock complexes for
which the maximum fishing mortality rate has been exceeded or for which
the minimum stock size has not been achieved. Thus, the Secretary's
decision as to whether a stock or stock complex is listed in the annual
report of overfished stocks would be based on either the current rate
of fishing mortality or the current condition of the stock, regardless
of whether that condition is associated with either previous or current
overfishing.
Preventing Overfishing
The Magnuson-Stevens Act is clear in its requirement to prevent
overfishing. Except under very limited conditions, discussed below,
this requirement must be satisfied. The Magnuson-Stevens Act's
requirement to take remedial action in the event that a stock becomes
overfished is not a substitute for the requirement to prevent
overfishing in the first place.
Previous versions of the national standard guidelines have
described limited conditions under which some amount of overfishing is
permissible. Some of these conditions are retained in
Sec. 600.310(d)(6) in the proposed revision, but they are tightened
considerably. Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that OY and
overfishing criteria be specified for each fishery, it does not require
a one-to-one relationship between the fisheries for which OYs are
specified and the fisheries for which overfishing criteria are
specified. For example, in a mixed-stock fishery, overfishing criteria
may be specified for the individual stocks, even if OY is specified for
the fishery as a whole (see Sec. 600.310(c)(2)(iii)). Thus, it is
conceivable that OY could be achieved for the fishery as a whole, even
while overfishing of an individual stock is occurring.
Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Overfished Stocks
In the event that overfishing occurs or is projected to occur
within 2 years, or in the event that a stock or stock complex is
overfished or is projected to become overfished within 2 years, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, in section 304(e), gives detailed requirements
for Council action that must be undertaken in response. As described in
Sec. 600.310(e) of the proposed guidelines, if overfishing is
occurring, Council action must be designed to reduce
[[Page 41910]]
fishing mortality to a rate or level no greater than the maximum
fishing mortality threshold. If a stock or stock complex is overfished,
fishing at a rate or level equal to the maximum fishing mortality
threshold will not meet the required rate and level of rebuilding. In
such cases, Council action must go beyond that required for situations
involving only overfishing.
Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act implicitly sets the rebuilding
target equal to the MSY stock size, this constitutes a minimum standard
only. In general, management practices should be designed to achieve an
average stock size equal to the stock size associated with OY (or the
average OY, in cases where OY is determined annually), and rebuilding
plans should be consistent with this goal. Because OY cannot exceed MSY
on average, the stock size that would produce OY will generally be
greater than the stock size that would produce MSY. Remedial action
should do more than merely assure that the stock reaches the target
level; rather, the goal should be to restore the stock's capacity to
remain at that level on a continuing basis, consistent with the stock's
natural variability. For example, a stock should not be considered
rebuilt just because its current size matches the target level, which
could result from a single good year class, if the stock's condition
would not likely be sustained by succeeding year classes. In order to
conclude that a stock has fully recovered, it may be necessary to
rebuild the age structure, in addition to achieving a particular
biomass target. This generally requires keeping fishing mortality at an
appropriately low level for several years (approximately one generation
of the species).
Remedial action should be designed to make consistent and
reasonably rapid progress towards recovery. ``Consistent progress''
means that no grace period exists beyond the statutory timeframe of 1
year for taking remedial action, and that such action should include
explicit milestones expressed in terms of measurable improvement of the
stock with respect to its status determination criteria. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act, in section 304(e)(4), requires that the time period for
rebuilding be as short as possible, but always less than 10 years,
except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, other
environmental conditions, or management measures under an international
agreement in which the United States participates dictate otherwise.
Optimum Yield
One of the most significant changes made by the SFA is a
requirement that OY not exceed MSY. Further, for overfished fisheries,
OY must be based upon a rebuilding schedule that increases stock levels
to those that would produce MSY. These changes are expressions of a
precautionary approach, which should contain three features (see
Sec. 600.310(f)(5)). First, target reference points, such as OY, should
be set safely below limit reference points, such as the catch level
associated with the maximum fishing mortality threshold. Second, a
stock that is below its MSY level should be harvested at a lower rate
or level of fishing mortality than if it were above its MSY level.
Third, the criteria used to set target catch levels should be
explicitly risk averse, so that greater uncertainty regarding a stock's
status or productive capacity corresponds to greater caution in setting
target catch levels. Because specification of a precautionary approach
can be a complicated exercise, NMFS plans to supplement these
guidelines in the near future with technical guidance for use in
implementing such an approach. This additional guidance may be provided
in a form similar to that developed to implement the 1994 amendments to
the MMPA.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act is clear in its requirement that
specification of OY take into account protection of marine ecosystems.
This is reflected in the new provisions concerning the identification
and description of essential fish habitat (EFH). Proposed guidelines
for designation of EFH were published in the Federal Register on April
23, 1997, at 62 FR 19723. Due to the complex nature of marine ecosystem
structure and function, qualitative methods may be used to satisfy this
requirement wherever data or scientific understanding are insufficient
to permit use of quantitative methods.
NMFS recognizes the growing importance of non-consumptive uses of
marine fishery resources. Such activities include ecotourism, fish
watching, recreational diving, and marine education. These proposed
guidelines are intended to accommodate such uses in specifying OY.
National Standard 2
National standard 2 requires that conservation and management
measures be based on the best scientific information available.
Guidelines for national standard 2, at Sec. 600.315, would be revised
to clarify that data to be considered include information on the marine
ecosystem, and that information on the fishery should include
information on fishing communities. These proposed revisions reflect
increased emphasis placed on these areas by the SFA. In addition,
Sec. 600.315(e)(3) would be revised to require that each Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report contain a description
of the maximum fishing mortality threshold and the minimum stock size
threshold for each stock or stock complex, along with additional
information to determine the stock status relative to the overfishing
criteria.
National Standard 4
Language from section 303(a)(14) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act would
be added to Sec. 600.325(c)(3)(ii) to specify that, to the extent that
rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures that
reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, any harvest
restrictions or recovery benefits must be allocated fairly and
equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing
sectors of the fishery.
National Standard 5
The SFA reworded this standard by replacing the word ``promote''
with ``consider.'' The proposed revisions to Sec. 600.330 would revise
the national standard language and make other minor adjustments to
bring the guidelines into conformance with that change, replace the
term ``Magnuson Act'' with ``Magnuson-Stevens Act,'' and correct
references to that statute.
National Standard 7
National standard 7 requires that conservation and management
measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary
duplication. Section 600.340(b) would be revised to clarify that, while
the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require that an FMP be prepared for
every fishery, Councils must prepare FMPs 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.
National Standard 8
National standard 8 requires that conservation and management
measures take into consideration the importance of fishery resources to
fishing communities, with a goal of providing for the sustained
participation of those communities and minimizing adverse economic
impacts to the extent practicable. In successive drafts of standard 8,
Congress clarified that the
[[Page 41911]]
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities must be
considered within the context of the conservation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act by including in the final standard the phrase
``consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including
the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks).''
Therefore, the proposed guidelines emphasize that national standard 8
must not compromise the conservation goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
For the purposes of national standard 8, fishing communities are
considered geographic areas encompassing a specific locale where
residents are dependent on fishery resources or are engaged in the
harvesting or processing of those resources. The geographic area is not
necessarily limited to the boundaries of a particular city or town. No
minimum size for a community is specified, and the degree to which the
community is ``substantially engaged in'' or ``substantially dependent
on'' the fishery resources must be defined within the context of the
geographical area of the FMP. Those residents in the area engaged in
the fisheries include not only those actively working in the harvesting
or processing sectors, but also ``fishery-support services or
industries,'' such as boat yards, ice suppliers, or tackle shops, and
other fishery-dependent industries, such as ecotourism, marine
education, and recreational diving.
The term ``sustained participation'' does not mandate maintenance
of any particular level or distribution of participation in one or more
fisheries or fishing activities. Changes are inevitable in fisheries,
whether they relate to species targeted, gear utilized, or the mix of
seasonal fisheries during the year. This standard implies the
maintenance of continued access to fishery resources in general by the
community. As a result, national standard 8 does not ensure that
fishermen would be able to continue to use a particular gear type, to
target a particular species, or to fish during a particular time of the
year.
National Standard 9
National standard 9 requires that the Councils and NMFS consider
the effects of conservation and management measures on bycatch. This
standard applies to all existing and planned conservation and
management measures, because most of these measures can affect amounts
of bycatch or bycatch mortality in a fishery, as well as the extent to
which further reductions in bycatch are practicable (but see discussion
above under ``General''.
Specifically, national standard 9 requires that conservation and
management measures, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch and,
to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of
such bycatch. Bycatch occurs when fishing methods are not perfectly
selective or when fishermen catch more than they are able to or choose
to retain. A fishing method is perfectly selective if it results in the
catch and retention only of the desired size, sex, quality, and
quantity of the target species, without causing other fishing-related
mortality; few, if any, fishing methods meet these strict criteria.
Bycatch results in fishing mortality because some portion of the
bycatch does not survive, even if it is returned to the sea or escapes
after an encounter with the fishing gear. Bycatch mortality affects the
ability to achieve sustainable fisheries and the benefits they can
provide to the Nation.
For purposes of national standard 9, the term ``bycatch'' means
fish that are harvested in a fishery, but that are not sold or kept for
personal use. Fish released alive under a recreational catch-and-
release fishery management program are not considered bycatch if they
are not regulatory discards (fish released because regulations require
it). Fish released dead under a recreational catch-and-release program
are considered bycatch. Atlantic highly migratory species harvested in
a commercial fishery managed by the Secretary under section 304(g) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16
U.S.C. 971d) that are not regulatory discards and that are tagged and
released alive under a scientific tagging and release program
established by the Secretary are not bycatch. Bycatch also does not
include any fish that are legally retained in a fishery and kept for
personal, tribal, or cultural use or that enter commerce through sale,
barter, or trade. Fish donated to a nonprofit organization are bycatch
if the retention of the donated fish otherwise would be prohibited.
``Fish,'' as defined in Sec. 600.10, includes all forms of marine
animal (including sea turtles) and plant life, other than marine
mammals and birds. Thus, national standard 9 does not apply to the
incidental catch of marine mammals or birds. Incidental catches of
these species are governed under other statutes such as the MMPA, the
ESA, or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Bycatch includes fish taken by fishing gear but not captured by a
fisherman (i.e., unobserved fishing-related mortality). For purposes of
national standard 9, unobserved mortality is restricted to mortality
resulting from direct interaction with fishing gear. Examples of
unobserved bycatch mortality include mortality resulting from injuries
to fish that escape through net mesh; mortality of crabs or other
benthic organisms that are crushed by on-bottom gear; mortality of fish
that are hooked, but not landed; or mortality of fish due to ghost
fishing of abandoned or lost fishing gear. Mortality due to other than
direct interactions of fish with fishing gear is not included as
bycatch; however, the ecosystem or other effects of such mortality can
be important.
``Discard'' refers only to the discard of whole fish at sea or
elsewhere. Bycatch and bycatch mortality can be reduced by changing
how, when, where, and how many fish are caught, how many fish are
discarded, and how fish are handled before being discarded. Bycatch can
be decreased either by decreasing the catch of fish that would be
discarded or by retaining fish that otherwise would be discarded.
National standard 9 establishes a priority first to reduce bycatch, and
then to increase the survival rate of fish that are discarded.
Reducing bycatch by simply retaining juvenile fish that would
otherwise have been discarded will not eliminate the problem of
foregoing the potential growth of those fish. This approach may be
substantially less beneficial than avoiding the catch of the juvenile
fish in the first place. Therefore, alternatives that include reduction
in the catch of juvenile fish should be considered.
The proposed national standard 9 guidelines acknowledge that
bycatch and discard survival data, information to assess impacts on the
population and ecosystem, and data on social and economic effects of
alternative management measures to reduce bycatch may be limited. Due
to these limitations, precise estimates of bycatch, bycatch mortality,
or associated effects of alternative conservation and management
measures may not be possible.
Councils should support monitoring programs to improve estimates of
total fishing-related mortality and bycatch, as well as those to
improve other information used to determine the extent to which it is
practicable to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality. Sources of this
information could include at-sea observer programs, new technology to
monitor catch weight and species composition, or better use of
industry-reported catch and discard information. The importance of this
activity is emphasized in section 303(a)(11) and (12) of the Magnuson-
[[Page 41912]]
Stevens Act, which requires that FMPs establish a standardized
reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch
occurring in the fishery. Timely summaries of the amount and type of
bycatch for each fishery should be collated for each fishery; SAFE
reports required under Sec. 600.315(e) provide a vehicle for these
summaries.
Because limited resources are available to the Councils and NMFS to
address bycatch problems, and a variety of bycatch problems exists in
most fisheries, each Council should identify and prioritize the bycatch
problems in its fisheries, based on the benefits to the Nation expected
to accrue from addressing these problems.
National Standard 10
This new standard states, ``Conservation and management measures
shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at
sea.'' It requires that FMPs, FMP amendments, and other regulations
consider impacts of management measures on safety of life at sea and
attempt to minimize any adverse impacts. The proposed guidelines
interpret the phrases ``to the extent practicable'' and ``safety of
human life at sea,'' and include guidance on safety considerations, a
consultation process, and possible mitigation measures to be used to
avoid or lessen the impact of management measures on the safety of
fishermen.
Classification
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of
E.O. 12866, although a determination has not been made whether the
actions associated with the guidelines will have an annual impact on
the economy of $100 million or more.
The main thrust of the guidelines, in carrying out the 1996
revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is to reduce overfishing
immediately, rebuild overfished stocks within a set timeframe, and
reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. An
economic analysis quantifying the expected benefits and costs is not
available at this time. However, it is expected that as fish stocks are
rebuilt, long-term benefits will significantly outweigh short-term
costs of management regimes developed under these guidelines. The
relative benefits and costs associated with the implementation of the
guidelines will be determined as individual FMPs are revised to meet
the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Nevertheless, a rough estimate of the total potential benefits can
be made, assuming that all stocks are rebuilt to their maximum
sustainable levels. Over the long term, and summed for all fisheries
within the exclusive economic zone, the potential increase in net
revenues is estimated at $2.9 billion annually, along with an
additional 300,000 jobs nationwide. As the flow of fish from rebuilt
stocks to consumers increases, price fluctuations may begin to flatten,
and employment will stabilize, thereby providing additional benefits to
the Nation. The costs associated with programs developed under these
guidelines will include short-term reductions in fishing effort and
investment in new fishing gear. Each amendment to an existing FMP and
all new FMPs will contain detailed analyses of the benefits and costs
of the management programs under consideration, to ensure compliance
with E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would add to and update the national
standards and accompanying explanatory and interpretive language to
implement statutory provisions of the SFA. The SFA's amendments to the
national standards make it necessary for the Councils to examine their
existing FMPs and all future proposed management measures to ensure
that they comply with the national standards; FMPs found out of
compliance will need to be amended. These proposed guidelines are
intended to provide direction and elaboration on compliance with the
national standards and, in themselves, do not have the force of law.
Should Councils propose regulations as a result of the SFA, those
actions may affect small entities and could be subject to the
requirement to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis at the time
they are proposed. Any future effects on small entities that may
ultimately result from amendments to FMPs to bring them into compliance
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act would be speculative at this time. As a
result, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this proposed rule was
not prepared.
Reference
Rosenberg, A., P. Mace, G. Thompson, G. Darcy, W. Clark, J. Collie,
W. Gabriel, A. MacCall, R. Methot, J. Powers, V. Restrepo, T.
Wainwright, L. Botsford, J. Hoenig, K. Stokes. 1994. Scientific review
of definitions of overfishing in U.S. fishery management plans. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-17, 205 p. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Office of
Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: July 30, 1997.
David L. Evans,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 600--MAGNUSON 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. The part heading is revised to read as follows:
PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS
3. In Sec. 600.305, paragraph (c)(13) is removed and the second and
third sentences of paragraph (a)(2), the last sentence of paragraph
(a)(3), and paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(11), and (c)(12) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 600.305 General.
(a) * * *
(2) * * * 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) * * * FMPs that are in substantial compliance with the
guidelines, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law must be
approved.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(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.
* * * * *
(3) Should is used to indicate that an action or consideration is
strongly recommended to fulfill the Secretary's interpretation of the
Magnuson-Stevens
[[Page 41913]]
Act, and is a factor reviewers will look for in evaluating a SOPP or
FMP.
* * * * *
(11) Council includes the Secretary, as applicable, when preparing
FMPs or amendments under section 304(c) and (g) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
(12) Stock or stock complex is used as a synonym for ``fishery'' in
the sense of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's first definition of the term;
that is, as ``one or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit
for purposes of conservation and management and that are identified on
the basis of geographic, scientific, technical, recreational, or
economic characteristics,'' as distinguished from the Magnuson-Stevens
Act's second definition of fishery as ``any fishing for such stocks.''
4. Section 600.310 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 600.310 National Standard 1--Optimum Yield.
(a) Standard 1. Conservation and management measures shall prevent
overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each
fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.
(b) General. The determination of OY is a decisional mechanism for
resolving the Magnuson-Stevens Act's multiple purposes and policies,
implementing an FMP's objectives, and balancing the various interests
that comprise the national welfare. OY is based on MSY, or on MSY as it
may be reduced under paragraph (f)(3) 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.
(c) MSY. Each FMP should include an estimate of MSY.
(1) Definitions. (i) ``MSY'' is the largest long-term average catch
or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex under
prevailing ecological and environmental conditions.
(ii) ``MSY control rule'' means a harvest strategy which, if
implemented, would be expected to result in a long-term average catch
approximating MSY.
(iii) ``MSY stock size'' means the long-term average size of the
stock or stock complex, measured in terms of spawning biomass or other
appropriate units, that would be achieved under an MSY control rule in
which the fishing mortality rate is constant.
(2) Options in specifying MSY. (i) Because MSY is a theoretical
concept, its estimation in practice is conditional on the choice of an
MSY control rule. In choosing an MSY control rule, Councils should be
guided by the characteristics of the fishery, the FMP's objectives, and
the best scientific information available. The simplest MSY control
rule is to remove a constant catch in each year that the estimated
stock size exceeds an appropriate lower bound, where this catch is
chosen so as to maximize the resulting long-term average yield. Other
examples include the following: Remove a constant fraction of the
biomass in each year, where this fraction is chosen so as to maximize
the resulting long-term average yield; allow a constant level of
escapement in each year, where this level is chosen so as to maximize
the resulting long-term average yield; vary the fishing mortality rate
as a continuous function of stock size, where the parameters of this
function are constant and chosen so as to maximize the resulting long-
term average yield. In any MSY control rule, a given stock size is
associated with a given level of fishing mortality and a given level of
potential harvest, where the long-term average of these potential
harvests provides an estimate of MSY.
(ii) Any MSY values used in determining OY will necessarily be
estimates, and these will typically be associated with some level of
uncertainty. Such estimates must be based on the best scientific
information available (see Sec. 600.315) and must incorporate
appropriate consideration of risk (see Sec. 600.335). Beyond these
requirements, however, Councils have a reasonable degree of latitude in
determining which estimates to use and how these estimates are to be
expressed. For example, a point estimate of MSY may be expressed by
itself or together with a confidence interval around that estimate.
(iii) In the case of a mixed-stock fishery, MSY should be specified
on a stock-by-stock basis. However, where MSY cannot be specified for
each stock, then MSY may be specified on the basis of one or more
species as an indicator for the mixed stock as a whole or for the
fishery as a whole.
(iv) Because MSY is a long-term average, it need not be estimated
annually, but it must be based on the best scientific information
available, and should be re-estimated as required by changes in
environmental or ecological conditions or new scientific information.
(3) Alternatives to specifying MSY. When data are insufficient to
estimate MSY directly, Councils should adopt other measures of
productive capacity that can serve as reasonable proxies for MSY, to
the extent possible. Examples include various reference points defined
in terms of relative spawning per recruit. For instance, the fishing
mortality rate that reduces the long-term average level of spawning per
recruit to 30-40 percent of the long-term average that would be
expected in the absence of fishing may be a reasonable proxy for the
MSY fishing mortality rate. The long-term average stock size obtained
by fishing year after year at this rate under average recruitment may
be a reasonable proxy for the MSY stock size, and the long-term average
catch so obtained may be a reasonable proxy for MSY. The natural
mortality rate may also be a reasonable proxy for the MSY fishing
mortality rate. If a reliable estimate of pristine stock size (i.e.,
the long-term average stock size that would be expected in the absence
of fishing) is available, a stock size somewhere in the range of 25-75
percent of this value may be a reasonable proxy for the MSY stock size,
and the product of this stock size and the natural mortality rate may
be a reasonable proxy for MSY.
(d) Overfishing--(1) Definitions. (i) ``To overfish'' means to fish
at a rate or level that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock
complex to produce MSY on a continuing basis.
(ii) ``Overfishing'' occurs whenever a stock or stock complex is
subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the
capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a continuing
basis.
(iii) In the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the term ``overfished'' is used
in two senses: First, to describe any stock or stock complex that is
subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality meeting the criterion
in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, and second, to describe any
stock or stock complex whose size is sufficiently small that a change
in management practices is required in order to achieve an appropriate
level and rate of rebuilding. To avoid confusion, this section uses
``overfished'' in the second sense only.
(2) Specification of status determination criteria. Each FMP must
specify, to the extent possible, objective and measurable status
determination criteria for each stock or stock complex covered by that
FMP and provide an analysis of how the status determination criteria
were chosen and how they relate to reproductive potential. Status
determination criteria must be expressed in a way that enables the
Council and the Secretary to monitor the stock or stock complex and
determine annually whether overfishing is occurring and whether the
stock or stock complex is overfished. In all cases, status
determination criteria must specify both of the following:
(i) A maximum fishing mortality threshold or reasonable proxy
thereof.
[[Page 41914]]
The fishing mortality threshold may be expressed either as a single
number or as a function of spawning biomass or other measure of
productive capacity. The fishing mortality threshold must not exceed
the fishing mortality rate or level associated with the relevant MSY
control rule. Exceeding the fishing mortality threshold for a period of
1 year or more constitutes overfishing.
(ii) A minimum stock size threshold or reasonable proxy thereof.
The stock size threshold should be expressed in terms of spawning
biomass or other measure of productive capacity. To the extent
possible, the stock size threshold should equal whichever of the
following is greater: One-half the MSY stock size, or the minimum stock
size at which rebuilding to the MSY level would be expected to occur
within 10 years if the stock or stock complex were exploited at the
maximum fishing mortality threshold specified under paragraph (d)(2)(i)
of this section. Should the actual size of the stock or stock complex
in a given year fall below this threshold, the stock or stock complex
is considered overfished.
(3) Relationship of status determination criteria to other national
standards--(i) National standard 2. Status determination criteria must
be based on the best scientific information available (see
Sec. 600.315). When data are insufficient to estimate MSY, Councils
should base status determination criteria on reasonable proxies thereof
to the extent possible (also see paragraph (c)(3) of this section). In
cases where scientific data are severely limited, effort should also be
directed to identifying and gathering the needed data.
(ii) National standard 3. The requirement to manage interrelated
stocks of fish as a unit or in close coordination notwithstanding (see
Sec. 600.320), status determination criteria should generally be
specified in terms of the level of stock aggregation for which the best
scientific information is available (also see paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of
this section).
(iii) National standard 6. Councils must build into the status
determination criteria appropriate consideration of risk, taking into
account uncertainties in estimating harvest, stock conditions, life
history parameters, or the effects of environmental factors (see
Sec. 600.335).
(4) Relationship of status determination criteria to environmental
change. Some short-term environmental changes can alter the current
size of a stock or stock complex without affecting the long-term
productive capacity of the stock or stock complex. Other environmental
changes affect both the current size of the stock or stock complex and
the long-term productive capacity of the stock or stock complex.
(i) If environmental changes cause a stock or stock complex to fall
below the minimum stock size threshold without affecting the long-term
productive capacity of the stock or stock complex, fishing mortality
must be constrained sufficiently to allow rebuilding within an
acceptable timeframe (also see paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section).
Status determination criteria need not be respecified.
(ii) If environmental changes affect the long-term productive
capacity of the stock or stock complex, one or more components of the
status determination criteria must be respecified. Once status
determination criteria 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.
(iii) If manmade environmental changes are partially responsible
for a stock or stock complex being in an overfished condition, in
addition to controlling effort, Councils should recommend restoration
of habitat and other ameliorative programs, to the extent possible.
(5) Secretarial approval of status determination criteria.
Secretarial approval or disapproval of proposed status determination
criteria will be based on consideration of whether the proposal:
(i) Has sufficient scientific merit.
(ii) Contains the elements described in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(iii) Provides a basis for objective measurement of the status of
the stock or stock complex against the criteria.
(iv) Is operationally feasible.
(6) Exceptions. There are certain limited exceptions to the
requirement to prevent overfishing. Harvesting one species of a mixed-
stock complex at its optimum level may result in the overfishing of
another stock component in the complex. A Council may decide to permit
this type of overfishing only if all of the following conditions are
satisfied:
(i) It is demonstrated by analysis (paragraph (f)(6) of this
section) that such action will result in long-term net benefits to the
Nation.
(ii) It is demonstrated by analysis 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.
(iii) The resulting rate or level of fishing mortality will not
cause any species or ecologically significant unit thereof to require
protection under the ESA, or any stock or stock complex to fall below
its minimum stock size threshold.
(e) Ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks. (1)
Definition. A threshold, either maximum fishing mortality or minimum
stock size, is being ``approached'' whenever it is projected that the
threshold will be breached within 2 years, based on trends in fishing
effort, fishery resource size, and other appropriate factors.
(2) Notification. The Secretary will immediately notify a Council
and request that remedial action be taken whenever the Secretary
determines that:
(i) Overfishing is occurring;
(ii) A stock or stock complex is overfished;
(iii) The rate or level of fishing mortality for a stock or stock
complex is approaching the maximum fishing mortality threshold;
(iv) A stock or stock complex is approaching its minimum stock size
threshold; or
(v) 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.
(3) Council action. Within 1 year of such time as the Secretary may
identify that overfishing is occurring, that a stock or stock complex
is overfished, or that a threshold is being approached, or such time as
a Council may be notified of the same under paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, the Council must take remedial action by preparing an FMP, FMP
amendment, or proposed regulations. This remedial action must be
designed to accomplish all of the following purposes that apply:
(i) If overfishing is occurring, the purpose of the action is to
end overfishing.
(ii) If the stock or stock complex is overfished, the purpose of
the action is to rebuild the stock or stock complex to the MSY level
within an appropriate timeframe.
(iii) If the rate or level of fishing mortality is approaching the
maximum fishing mortality threshold (from below), the purpose of the
action is to prevent this threshold from being reached.
(iv) If the stock or stock complex is approaching the minimum stock
size threshold (from above), the purpose of the action is to prevent
this threshold from being reached.
(4) Constraints on Council action. (i) In cases where overfishing
is occurring,
[[Page 41915]]
Council action must be sufficient to end overfishing.
(ii) In cases where a stock or stock complex is overfished, Council
action must specify a time period for rebuilding the stock or stock
complex that is as short as possible, taking into account the status
and biology of the stock or stock complex, the needs of fishing
communities, recommendations by international organizations in which
the United States participates, and the interaction of the overfished
stock or stock complex within the marine ecosystem. However, in no case
may the timeframe for rebuilding exceed 10 years, except where the
biology of the stock or stock complex, other environmental conditions,
or management measures under an international agreement in which the
United States participates dictate otherwise.
(iii) For fisheries managed under an international agreement,
Council action must reflect traditional participation in the fishery,
relative to other nations, by fishermen of the United States.
(5) Interim measures. The Secretary, on his/her own initiative or
in response to a Council request, may implement interim measures to
reduce overfishing under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
until such measures can be replaced by an FMP, FMP amendment, or
regulations taking remedial action.
(i) These measures may remain in effect for no more than 180 days,
but may be extended for an additional 180 days if the public has had an
opportunity to comment on the measures and, in the case of Council-
recommended measures, the Council is actively preparing an FMP, FMP
amendment, or proposed regulations to address overfishing on a
permanent basis. Such measures, if otherwise in compliance with the
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, may be implemented even though
they are not sufficient by themselves to stop overfishing of a fishery.
(ii) If interim measures are made effective without prior notice
and opportunity for comment, they should be reserved for exceptional
situations, because they affect fishermen without providing the usual
procedural safeguards. A Council recommendation for interim measures
without notice-and-comment rulemaking will be considered favorably if
the short-term benefits of the measures in reducing overfishing
outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and deliberative
consideration of the impacts on participants in the fishery.
(f) OY--(1) Definitions. (i) The term ``optimum,'' with respect to
the yield from a fishery, means 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.
(ii) In national standard 1, use of the phrase ``achieving, on a
continuing basis, the OY from each fishery'' means producing, from each
fishery, a long-term series of catches such that the average catch is
equal to the average OY and such that status determination criteria are
met.
(2) Values in determination. In determining the greatest benefit to
the Nation, these values that should be weighed are food production,
recreational opportunities, and protection afforded to marine
ecosystems. They should receive serious attention when considering the
economic, social, or ecological factors used in reducing MSY to obtain
OY.
(i) The benefits of food production are derived from providing
seafood to consumers, maintaining an economically viable fishery, and
utilizing the capacity of U.S. fishery resources to meet nutritional
needs.
(ii) The benefits of recreational opportunities reflect the
importance of the quality of the recreational fishing experience and of
the contribution of recreational fishing to the national, regional, and
local economies and food supplies. Such benefits also include the
quality of non-consumptive fishery experiences such as ecotourism, fish
watching, recreational diving, and other non-consumptive activities
important to the national, regional, and local economies.
(iii) The benefits of protection afforded to marine ecosystems are
those resulting from maintaining viable populations (including those of
unexploited species), maintaining evolutionary and ecological processes
(e.g., disturbance regimes, hydrological processes, nutrient cycles),
maintaining the evolutionary potential of species and ecosystems, and
accommodating human use.
(3) Factors relevant to OY. Because fisheries have finite
capacities, any attempt to maximize the measures of benefit described
in paragraph (f)(2) of this section will inevitably encounter practical
constraints. One of these is MSY. Moreover, various factors can
constrain the optimum level of catch to a value less than MSY. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act's definition of OY identifies three categories of
such factors: Social, economic, and ecological. Not every factor will
be relevant in every fishery. For some fisheries, insufficient
information may be available with respect to some factors to provide a
basis for corresponding reductions in MSY.
(i) 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. Other factors that may be
considered include the cultural place of subsistence fishing,
obligations under Indian treaties, and worldwide nutritional needs.
(ii) Economic factors. Examples are prudent consideration of the
risk of overharvesting when a stock's size or productive capacity is
uncertain, 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, and the attendant increase in
catch per unit of effort, alternate employment opportunities, and
economies of coastal areas.
(iii) Ecological factors. Examples are stock size and age
composition, the vulnerability of incidental or unregulated stocks in a
mixed-stock fishery, predator-prey or competitive interactions, and
dependence of marine mammals and birds or endangered species on a stock
of fish. Also important are ecological or environmental conditions that
stress marine organisms, such as natural and manmade changes in
wetlands or nursery grounds, and effects of pollutants on habitat and
stocks.
(4) Specification. (i) The amount of fish that constitutes the OY
should be expressed in terms of numbers or weight of fish. However, OY
may be expressed as a formula that converts periodic stock assessments
into target harvest levels; in terms of an annual harvest of fish or
shellfish having a minimum weight, length, or other measurement; or as
an amount of fish taken only in certain areas, in certain seasons, with
particular gear, or by a specified amount of fishing effort.
(ii) Either a range or a single value may be specified for OY.
Specification of a numerical, fixed-value OY does not preclude use of
annual target harvest
[[Page 41916]]
levels that vary with stock size. Such target harvest levels may be
prescribed on the basis of an OY control rule similar to the MSY
control rule described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, but
designed to achieve OY on average, rather than MSY. The annual harvest
level obtained under an OY control rule should always be less than or
equal to the harvest level that would be obtained under the MSY control
rule.
(iii) All fishing mortality must be counted against OY, including
that resulting from bycatch, research fishing, and any other fishing
activities.
(iv) The OY specification should be translatable into an annual
numerical estimate for the purposes of establishing any TALFF and
analyzing impacts of the management regime. There should be a mechanism
in the FMP for periodic reassessment of the OY specification, so that
it is responsive to changing circumstances in the fishery.
(v) The determination of OY requires a specification of MSY, which
may not always be possible or meaningful. 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, the OY must still
be based on the best scientific information available. When data are
insufficient to estimate MSY directly, Councils should adopt other
measures of productive capacity that can serve as reasonable proxies
for MSY to the extent possible (also see paragraph (c)(3) of this
section).
(vi) In a mixed-stock fishery, specification of a fishery-wide OY
may be accompanied by management measures establishing separate annual
target harvest levels for the individual stocks. In such cases, the sum
of the individual target levels should not exceed OY.
(5) OY and the precautionary approach. In general, Councils should
adopt a precautionary approach to specification of OY. A precautionary
approach is characterized by three features:
(i) Target reference points, such as OY, should be set safely below
limit reference points, such as the catch level associated with the
fishing mortality rate or level defined by the status determination
criteria. Because it is a target reference point, OY does not
constitute an absolute ceiling, but rather a desired result. An FMP
must contain conservation and management measures to achieve OY, and
provisions for information collection that are designed to determine
the degree to which OY is achieved on a continuing basis--that is, to
result in a long-term average catch equal to the long-term average OY,
while meeting the status determination criteria. These measures should
allow for practical and effective implementation and enforcement of the
management regime, so that the harvest is allowed to reach OY, but not
to exceed OY by a substantial amount. The Secretary has an obligation
to implement and enforce the FMP so that OY is achieved. If management
measures prove unenforceable--or too restrictive, or not rigorous
enough to realize OY--they should be modified; an alternative is to
reexamine the adequacy of the OY specification. Exceeding OY does not
necessarily constitute overfishing. However, even if no overfishing
resulted from exceeding OY, continual harvest at a level above OY would
violate national standard 1, because OY was not achieved on a
continuing basis.
(ii) A stock or stock complex that is below the size that would
produce MSY should be harvested at a lower rate or level of fishing
mortality than if the stock or stock complex were above the size that
would produce MSY.
(iii) Criteria used to set target catch levels should be explicitly
risk averse, so that greater uncertainty regarding the status or
productive capacity of a stock or stock complex corresponds to greater
caution in setting target catch levels. Part of the OY may be held as a
reserve to allow for factors such as uncertainties in estimates of
stock size and 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.
(6) Analysis. An FMP must contain an assessment of how its OY
specification was determined (section 303(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act). It should relate the explanation of overfishing in paragraph (d)
of this section to conditions in the particular fishery and explain how
its choice of OY and conservation and management measures will prevent
overfishing in that fishery. A Council must identify those economic,
social, and ecological factors relevant to management of a particular
fishery, then evaluate them to determine the amount, if any, by which
MSY exceeds OY. The choice of a particular OY must be carefully defined
and documented to show that the OY selected will produce the greatest
benefit to the Nation. If overfishing is permitted under paragraph
(d)(6) of this section, the assessment 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
species or ecologically significant unit thereof reaching a threatened
or endangered status, as well as the risk of any stock or stock complex
falling below its minimum stock size threshold.
(7) 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.
(i) DAH. Councils 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.
(ii) 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).
(iii) JVP. When DAH exceeds DAP, the surplus is available for JVP.
JVP is derived from DAH.
5. In Sec. 600.315, paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) are redesignated
as paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5), respectively; new paragraph (e)(3) is
added; and paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (e)(1) introductory text,
(e)(1)(ii), and newly redesignated (e)(4) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.315 National Standard 2--Scientific Information.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) An FMP should identify scientific information needed from other
sources to improve understanding and management of the resource, marine
ecosystem, and the fishery (including fishing communities).
(3) The information submitted by various data suppliers should be
comparable and compatible, to the maximum extent possible.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The SAFE report is a document or set of documents that provides
Councils with a summary of the most recent
[[Page 41917]]
biological condition of stocks and the marine ecosystems in the FMU and
the social and economic condition of the recreational and commercial
fishing interests and the fish processing industries. It summarizes, on
a periodic basis, the best available scientific information concerning
the past, present, and possible future condition of the stocks, marine
ecosystems, and fisheries being managed under Federal regulation.
* * * * *
(ii) The SAFE report provides information to the Councils for
determining annual harvest levels from each stock, documenting
significant trends or changes in the resource, marine ecosystems, and
fishery over time, and assessing the relative success of existing state
and Federal fishery management programs. Information on bycatch for
each fishery should also be summarized. In addition, the SAFE report
may be used to update or expand previous environmental and regulatory
impact documents, and ecosystem and habitat descriptions.
* * * * *
(3) Each SAFE report should contain a description of the maximum
fishing mortality threshold and the minimum stock size threshold for
each stock or stock complex, along with information by which the
Council may determine:
(i) Whether overfishing is occurring with respect to any stock or
stock complex, whether any stock or stock complex is overfished,
whether the rate or level of fishing mortality applied to any stock or
stock complex is approaching the maximum fishing mortality threshold,
and whether the size of any stock or stock complex is approaching the
minimum stock size threshold.
(ii) Any management measures necessary to provide for rebuilding an
overfished stock or stock complex (if any) to a level consistent with
producing the MSY in such fishery.
(4) Each SAFE report may contain additional economic, social,
community, and ecological information pertinent to the success of
management or the achievement of objectives of each FMP.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 600.320, the last sentence of paragraph (c) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 600.320 National Standard 3--Management Units.
* * * * *
(c) * * * The Secretary designates which Council(s) will prepare
the FMP, under section 304(f) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 600.325, paragraph (c)(3)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.325 National Standard 4--Allocations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Promotion of conservation. Numerous methods of allocating
fishing privileges are considered ``conservation and management''
measures under section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. An allocation
scheme may promote conservation by encouraging a rational, more easily
managed use of the resource. Or, it may promote conservation (in the
sense of wise use) by optimizing the yield, in terms of size, value,
market mix, price, or economic or social benefit of the product. To the
extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management
measures that reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary,
any harvest restrictions or recovery benefits must be allocated fairly
and equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing
sectors of the fishery.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 600.330, paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), the first sentence
of paragraph (c) introductory text, the last sentence of paragraph
(c)(1), and paragraph (c)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 600.330 National Standard 5--Efficiency.
(a) Standard 5. Conservation and management measures shall, where
practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery
resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation
as its sole purpose.
(b) * * *
(1) General. The term ``utilization'' encompasses harvesting,
processing, marketing, and non-consumptive uses of the resource, since
management decisions affect all sectors of the industry. In encouraging
efficient utilization of fishery resources, this standard highlights
one way that a fishery can contribute to the Nation's benefit with the
least cost to society: Given a set of objectives for the fishery, an
FMP should contain management measures that result in as efficient a
fishery as is practicable or desirable.
* * * * *
(c) Limited access. A ``system for limiting access,'' which is an
optional measure under section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is a
type of allocation of fishing privileges that may be considered to
contribute to economic efficiency or conservation. * * *
(1) * * * Two forms (i.e., Federal fees for licenses or permits in
excess of administrative costs, and taxation) are not permitted under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, except for fees allowed under section
304(d)(2).
(2) Factors to consider. The Magnuson-Stevens Act ties the use of
limited access to the achievement of OY. An FMP that proposes a limited
access system must consider the factors listed in section 303(b)(6) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and in Sec. 600.325(c)(3). In addition, it
should consider the criteria for qualifying for a permit, the nature of
the interest created, whether to make the permit transferable, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act's limitations on returning economic rent to the
public under section 304(d). The FMP should also discuss the costs of
achieving an appropriate distribution of fishing privileges.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 600.340, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by revising the
second sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 600.340 National Standard 7--Costs and Benefits.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * The Magnuson-Stevens Act 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. * * *
* * * * *
10. Sections 600.345, 600.350, and 600.355 are added to subpart D
to read as follows:
Sec. 600.345 National Standard 8--Communities.
(a) Standard 8. Conservation and management measures shall,
consistent with the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of
overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery
resources to fishing communities in order to:
(1) Provide for the sustained participation of such communities;
and
(2) To the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on
such communities.
(b) General. (1) This standard requires that an FMP take into
account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities.
This consideration, however, is within the context of the conservation
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Deliberations regarding the
importance of fishery resources to
[[Page 41918]]
affected fishing communities, therefore, must not compromise the
achievement of conservation requirements and goals of the FMP. Where
the preferred alternative negatively affects the sustained
participation of fishing communities, the FMP should discuss the
rationale for selecting this alternative over another with a lesser
impact on fishing communities. All other things being equal, where two
alternatives achieve similar conservation goals, the alternative that
provides the greater potential for sustained participation of such
communities and minimizes the adverse economic impacts on such
communities would be the preferred alternative.
(2) This standard does not constitute a basis for allocating
resources to a specific fishing community nor for providing
preferential treatment based on residence in a fishing community.
(3) The term ``fishing community'' means a community that is
substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or
processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and
includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew, and fish
processors that are based in such communities. A fishing community is a
social or economic group whose members reside in a specific location
and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or
subsistence fishing or on directly related fisheries-dependent services
and industries (for example, boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops).
(4) The term ``sustained participation'' means continued access to
the fishery within the constraints of the condition of the resource.
(c) Analysis. (1) FMPs should examine the social and economic
importance of fisheries to communities potentially affected by
management measures. For example, severe reductions of harvests for
conservation purposes may decrease employment opportunities for
fishermen and processing plant workers, thereby adversely affecting
their families and communities. Similarly, a management measure that
results in the allocation of fishery resources among competing sectors
of a fishery may benefit some communities at the expense of others.
(2) An appropriate vehicle for the analyses under this standard is
the fishery impact statement required by section 303(a)(9) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Qualitative and quantitative data may be used,
including information provided by fishermen, dealers, processors, and
fisheries organizations and associations. In cases where data are
severely limited, effort should be directed to identifying and
gathering needed data.
(3) To address the sustained participation of fishing communities
that will be affected by management measures, the analysis should first
identify affected fishing communities and then assess their differing
levels of dependence on and engagement in the fishery being regulated.
The analysis should also specify how that assessment was made. The best
available data on the history, extent, and type of participation of
these fishing communities in the fishery should be incorporated into
the social and economic information presented in the FMP. The analysis
does not have to contain an exhaustive listing of all communities that
might fit the definition; a judgment can be made as to which are
primarily affected. The analysis should discuss each alternative's
likely effect on the sustained participation of these fishing
communities in the fishery.
(4) The analysis should assess the likely positive and negative
social and economic impacts of the alternative management measures,
over both the short and the long term, on fishing communities. Any
particular management measure may economically benefit some communities
while adversely affecting others. Economic impacts should be considered
both for individual communities and for the group of all affected
communities identified in the FMP. Impacts of both consumptive and non-
consumptive uses of fishery resources should be considered.
(5) A discussion of social and economic impacts should identify
those alternatives that would minimize adverse impacts on these fishing
communities within the constraints of conservation and management goals
of the FMP, other national standards, and other applicable law.
Sec. 600.350 National Standard 9--Bycatch.
(a) Standard 9. Conservation and management measures shall, to the
extent practicable:
(1) Minimize bycatch; and
(2) To the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality
of such bycatch.
(b) General. This national standard requires Councils to consider
the bycatch effects of existing and planned conservation and management
measures. Bycatch can, in three ways, impede efforts to achieve
sustainable fisheries and the full benefits they can provide to the
Nation. First, failure to include bycatch in estimating allowable catch
in a directed fishery may result in unintended overfishing. Second, it
can increase substantially the uncertainty concerning total fishing-
related mortality, which makes it more difficult to assess the status
of stocks, to set the appropriate OY and define overfishing levels, and
to ensure that OYs are attained and overfishing levels are not
exceeded. Finally, bycatch may preclude other more productive uses of
fishery resources.
(c) Definitions--(1) Bycatch. The term ``bycatch'' means fish that
are harvested in a fishery (i.e., removed permanently from the
population as a result of fishing), but that are not sold or kept for
personal use. Bycatch includes economic discards, regulatory discards,
and fishing mortality due to an encounter with fishing gear that does
not result in capture of fish (i.e., unobserved fishing mortality).
Bycatch does not include any fish that legally are retained in a
fishery and kept for personal, tribal, or cultural use, or that enter
commerce through sale, barter, or trade. Bycatch does not include fish
released alive under a recreational catch-and-release fishery
management program.
(2) Discard. The term ``discard'' refers only to the discard of
whole fish at sea or elsewhere.
(d) Minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality. The priority for
reducing bycatch under this standard is to minimize or avoid catching
bycatch species where possible. Fish that are bycatch and cannot be
avoided should, to the extent practicable, be returned to the sea
alive. To evaluate conservation and management measures relative to
this and other national standards, as well as to evaluate total fishing
mortality, Councils should:
(1) Promote development of a database on bycatch and bycatch
mortality in the fishery to the extent practicable. A review and, where
necessary, improvement of data collection methods, data sources, and
applications of data should be initiated for each fishery to determine
the amount, type, disposition, and other characteristics of bycatch and
bycatch mortality in each fishery for purposes of this standard and of
section 303(a)(11) and (12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Bycatch should
be categorized to focus on management responses necessary to minimize
bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. When
appropriate, management measures, such as at-sea monitoring programs,
should be developed to meet these information needs.
(2) For each management measure, assess the effects on the amount
and type of bycatch and bycatch mortality in
[[Page 41919]]
the fishery. Most conservation and management measures can affect the
amounts of bycatch or bycatch mortality in a fishery, as well as the
extent to which further reductions in bycatch are practicable. In
analyzing measures, including the status quo, Councils should assess
the impacts of minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality, as well as
consistency of the selected measure with other national standards and
applicable laws. The benefits of minimizing bycatch to the extent
practicable should be identified and an assessment of the impact of the
selected measure on bycatch and bycatch mortality provided. Due to
limitations on the information available, fishery managers may not be
able to generate precise estimates of bycatch and bycatch mortality or
other effects for each alternative. In the absence of quantitative
estimates of the impacts of each alternative, Councils may use
qualitative estimates.
(3) Select measures that, to the extent practicable, will minimize
bycatch and bycatch mortality. A determination of whether a
conservation and management measure minimizes bycatch or bycatch
mortality to the extent practicable, consistent with other national
standards, should consider the following factors:
(i) Population effects for the bycatch species.
(ii) Ecological effects due to changes in the bycatch of that
species (effects on other species in the ecosystem).
(iii) Changes in the bycatch of other species of fish and the
resulting population and ecosystem effects.
(iv) Effects on marine mammals and birds.
(v) Changes in fishing, processing, disposal, and marketing costs.
(vi) Changes in fishing practices and behavior of fishermen.
(vii) Changes in research, administration, and enforcement costs
and management effectiveness.
(viii) Changes in the economic, social, or cultural value of
fishing activities and nonconsumptive uses of fishery resources.
(ix) Changes in the distribution of benefits and costs.
(x) Social effects.
(4) Implement and monitor selected management measures. Effects of
implemented measures should be evaluated routinely. Monitoring systems
should be established prior to fishing under the selected management
measures. Where applicable, implementation plans should be developed
and coordinated with industry and other concerned organizations to
identify opportunities for cooperative data collection, coordination of
data management for cost efficiency and avoidance of duplicative
effort.
(e) Other considerations. Other applicable laws, such as the MMPA,
the ESA, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, require that Councils
consider the impact of conservation and management measures on living
marine resources other than fish; i.e., marine mammals and birds.
Sec. 600.355 National Standard 10--Safety of Life at Sea.
(a) Standard 10. Conservation and management measures shall, to the
extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.
(b) General. (1) Fishing is an inherently dangerous occupation
where not all hazardous situations can be foreseen or avoided. The
standard directs Councils to reduce that risk in crafting their
management measures, so long as they can meet the other national
standards and the legal and practical requirements of conservation and
management. This standard is not meant to give preference to one method
of managing a fishery over another.
(2) The qualifying phrase ``to the extent practicable'' recognizes
that regulation necessarily puts constraints on fishing that would not
otherwise exist. These constraints may create pressures on fishermen to
fish under conditions that they would otherwise avoid. This standard
instructs the Councils to identify and avoid those situations, if they
can do so consistent with the legal and practical requirements of
conservation and management of the resource.
(3) For the purposes of this national standard, the safety of the
fishing vessel is considered the same as ``safety of human life at
sea.'' The safety of a vessel and the people aboard it is ultimately
the responsibility of the master of that vessel. Each master makes many
decisions about vessel maintenance and loading and about the
capabilities of the vessel and crew to operate safely in a variety of
weather and sea conditions. This national standard does not replace the
judgment or relieve the responsibility of the vessel master related to
vessel safety. The Councils, the USCG, and NMFS, through the
consultation process of paragraph (d) of this section, will review all
FMPs, amendments, and regulations during their development to ensure
they recognize any impact on the safety of human life at sea and
minimize or mitigate that impact where practicable.
(c) Safety considerations. The following is a noninclusive list of
safety considerations that should be considered in evaluating
management measures under national standard 10.
(1) Operating environment. Where and when a fishing vessel operates
is partly a function of the general climate and weather patterns of an
area. Typically, larger vessels can fish farther offshore and in more
adverse weather conditions than smaller vessels. An FMP should try to
avoid creating situations that result in vessels going out farther,
fishing longer, or fishing in weather worse than they generally would
have in the absence of management measures. Where these conditions are
unavoidable, management measures should mitigate these effects,
consistent with the overall management goals of the fishery.
(2) Gear and vessel loading requirements. A fishing vessel operates
in a very dynamic environment that can be an extremely dangerous place
to work. Moving heavy gear in a seaway creates a dangerous situation on
a vessel. Carrying extra gear can also significantly reduce the
stability of a fishing vessel, making it prone to capsizing. An FMP
should consider the safety and stability of fishing vessels when
requiring specific gear or requiring the removal of gear from the
water. Management measures should reflect a sensitivity to these issues
and provide methods of mitigation of these situations wherever
possible.
(3) Limited season and area fisheries. Fisheries where time
constraints for harvesting are a significant factor and with no
flexibility for weather, often called ``derby'' fisheries, can create
serious safety problems. To participate fully in such a fishery,
fishermen may fish in bad weather and overload their vessel with catch
and/or gear. Where these conditions exist, FMPs should attempt to
mitigate these effects and avoid them in new management regimes, as
discussed in paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) Consultation. During preparation of any FMP, FMP amendment, or
regulation that might affect safety of human life at sea, the Council
should consult with the USCG and the fishing industry as to the nature
and extent of any adverse impacts. This consultation may be done
through a Council advisory panel, committee, or other review of the
FMP, FMP amendment, or regulations. Mitigation, to the extent
practicable, and other safety considerations identified in paragraph
(c) of this section should be included in the FMP.
(e) Mitigation measures. There are many ways in which an FMP may
avoid or provide alternative measures to reduce potential impacts on
safety of
[[Page 41920]]
human life at sea. The following is a list of some factors that could
be considered when management measures are developed:
(1) Setting seasons to avoid hazardous weather.
(2) Providing for seasonal or trip flexibility to account for bad
weather (weather days).
(3) Allowing for pre- and post-season ``soak time'' to deploy and
pick up fixed gear, so as to avoid overloading vessels with fixed gear.
(4) Tailoring gear requirements to provide for smaller or lighter
gear for smaller vessels.
(5) Avoiding management measures that require hazardous at-sea
inspections or enforcement if other comparable enforcement could be
accomplished as effectively.
(6) Limiting the number of participants in the fishery.
(7) Spreading effort over time and area to avoid potential gear
and/or vessel conflicts.
(8) Implementing management measures that reduce the race for fish
and the resulting incentives for fishermen to take additional risks
with respect to vessel safety.
[FR Doc. 97-20588 Filed 7-31-97; 2:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
