Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard Guidelines, 36240-36259 [05-11978]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36240-36259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11978]



[[Page 36239]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Part 600



Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard Guidelines; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 36240]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 030128024-5027-02; I.D. 121002A]
RIN 0648-AQ63


Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard Guidelines

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes revisions to the guidelines for National 
Standard 1 (NS1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is necessary to 
clarify, amplify, and simplify the guidelines so that the Regional 
Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and the public can have a better 
understanding of how to establish status determination criteria (SDC) 
for stocks that vary in quality of available data, and how to construct 
and revise rebuilding plans. The intent of this action is to facilitate 
compliance with requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

DATES: Comments will be accepted through August 22, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: E-
mail comments should be sent to nationalstandard1@noaa.gov; or to Mark 
R. Millikin, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of 
Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13357, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910 (Mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on 
National Standard 1 proposed rule''); or to the Federal e-Rulemaking 
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Include in the subject line the 
following: ``Comments on proposed rule for National Standard 1.'' 
Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/
RIR) for this proposed rule are available from Mark R. Millikin, at the 
address listed above. The EA/RIR document is also available via the 
Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfweb/index.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark R. Millikin, Senior Fishery 
Management Specialist, 301-713-2341, e-mail mark.millikin@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed revisions in this rule include: (1) 
Rename ``minimum stock size threshold (MSST)'' as ``minimum biomass 
limit (Blim),'' ``maximum fishing mortality threshold 
(MFMT)'' as ``maximum fishing mortality limit (Flim),'' and 
``overfished'' as ``depleted''; (2) specify that fishery management 
plans (FMPs) may be revised so that species/stocks may be classified as 
``core'' stocks or stocks falling within a ``stock assemblage'' for 
each FMP; (3) reinforce the requirement that the annual fishing 
mortality rate (F) for a given fishery must prevent overfishing, by (a) 
requiring optimum yield (OY) control rules for core stocks to set 
Ftarget below Flim if adequate data are 
available, and (b) that any new or revised rebuilding plans specify 
that the target level of fishing mortality (Ftarget) must be 
less than Flim, beginning in the first year of the 
rebuilding plan, except in certain circumstances; (4) specify that 
Blim should equal one half of the biomass that produces 
maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy) as a default value, and 
clarify when exceptions greater than or less than the \1/
2\Bmsy amount are appropriate; (5) revise the maximum 
rebuilding time horizon formula to remove the discontinuity that 
results from the formula in the current NS1 guidelines; (6) establish a 
default value for target time to rebuild (Ttarget); (7) 
clarify how to use the fishing mortality rate that produces maximum 
sustainable yield (Fmsy) to determine when a fish stock is 
rebuilt, when and only when it is not possible to calculate 
Bmsy or other necessary factors; (8) clarify what aspects of 
rebuilding plans should be changed when such plans need to be revised; 
(9) specify appropriate limitations for F when a stock is not rebuilt 
at the end of its rebuilding plan; and (10) elaborate on how to manage 
``straddling stocks'' and international highly migratory stocks (HMS).

Background

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the chief authority for 
fisheries management in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Section 
301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act contains 10 national standards with 
which all FMPs and their amendments must be consistent. Section 301(b) 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that ``the Secretary establish 
advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), 
based on the national standards, to assist in the development of 
fishery management plans.'' Guidelines for the national standards are 
codified in subpart D of 50 CFR part 600. The guidelines for the 
national standards were last revised through a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on May 1, 1998 (63 FR 24212), by adding revisions 
to the guidelines for National Standards 1 (OY), 2 (scientific 
information), 4 (allocations), 5 (efficiency), and 7 (costs and 
benefits), and adding new guidelines for National Standards 8 
(communities), 9 (bycatch), and 10 (safety of life at sea).
    The guidelines for NS1 were revised extensively in the final rule 
published on May 1, 1998, to bring them into conformance to revisions 
to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended in 1996 by the Sustainable 
Fisheries Act (SFA). In particular, the 1998 revisions to the NS1 
guidelines addressed new requirements for FMPs brought about by SFA 
amendments to section 304(e) (rebuilding overfished fisheries).

NMFS's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for NS1 Guidelines

    NMFS published an ANPR in the Federal Register on February 14, 2003 
(68 FR 7492), to announce that it was considering revisions to the NS1 
guidelines. Having worked with the current version of the NS1 
guidelines since June 1, 1998 (the effective date of the May 1, 1998, 
final rule), NMFS has become aware of issues and problems regarding the 
application of the guidelines that were not apparent when the existing 
guidelines were prepared. The ANPR identified several areas being 
considered for revision, as follows:
    1. The definition and use of MSST for determining when a stock is 
overfished;
    2. Calculation of the rebuilding targets appropriate to the 
environmental regime;
    3. Calculation of the maximum permissible rebuilding times for 
overfished fisheries;
    4. The definitions of overfishing as they relate to a fishery as a 
whole, or a stock of fish within that fishery; and
    5. Procedures to follow when rebuilding plans require revision 
after initiation, especially with regard to modification of a 
rebuilding schedule.
    In the ANPR, NMFS also solicited comments from the public related 
to: (1) Whether or not the NS1 guidelines should be revised; (2) if 
revisions are desired, what part(s) of the NS1 guidelines should be 
revised; and (3) how should they be revised, and why. The comment 
period for the ANPR was extended through April 16, 2003 (March 3, 2003, 
68 FR 9967).

Public Comments Received on the ANPR

    NMFS received extensive public comments on the ANPR. NMFS received 
46 letters that had unique content. Also,

[[Page 36241]]

NMFS received more than 6,900 similar letters, in several different 
formats.
    The 6,900 similar letters contained one or more of following 
recommendations:
    1. The NS1 guidelines should not be weakened; rather, they should 
be made more effective in carrying out the mandate of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to end overfishing and rebuild stocks.
    2. The issues in the ANPR are troubling because they suggest NMFS 
is considering weakening the definition of when a stock is overfished, 
extending the time frames for rebuilding overfished populations, and 
allowing environmental degradation to be used as an excuse not to 
rebuild depleted fish stocks to previous levels.
    3. The definition of overfished populations should be maintained or 
even strengthened, and strict, enforceable deadlines of plans to 
rebuild these overfished populations should be established.
    4. Changing environmental conditions should not be used as an 
excuse to continue overfishing. NMFS should not allow fishermen to 
exceed target fishing levels, including in New England, where cod 
catches have exceeded target fishing levels by two to four times the 
amount of the target total allowable catch (TAC).
    A brief summary of recommendations in the 46 unique letters 
follows:

Blim (Currently Known as MSST)

    1. MSST (Blim) should be retained because it is an 
essential parameter for fishery management, being the only biological 
portion of the criteria used to determine when a stock is overfished.
    2. Better guidance is needed for designation of MSST in inadequate 
data situations. For some fisheries where there are little or no data, 
the guidelines should allow the use of controls on fishing effort, and 
landings and data collection, without the requirement to designate SDC.
    3. Current MSST guidance should be implemented to see whether or 
not that guidance is effective before revising guidance related to 
MSST.
    4. A better and broader range of advice is needed as to what would 
be a reasonable proxy for MSST in the absence of an available estimate 
of biomass.
    5. Better guidance is needed on how to address population 
characteristics of crustaceans, mollusks, and plants, compared with 
those of bony and cartilaginous fishes.
    6. Better guidance is needed on how MSY and OY should be addressed 
for short-lived species (e.g., should MSSTs and other criteria be point 
estimates or a range of estimates?).
    7. MSST calculations should take into account that, for long-lived 
species, recruitment varies considerably under changing environmental 
conditions.
    8. The requirement that a stock be considered overfished when it 
falls below MSST in a single year should be changed (e.g., when a stock 
falls below MSST due to high variability in recruitment).
    9. Sometimes a Council prohibits possession of a fish stock having 
an unknown status that is believed to be overfished. What else should 
the Council do to comply with NS1?
    10. For stocks having an unknown status in terms of MSST, spawning 
potential ratio-based values for the currently required biomass-based 
SDC should be recognized, until data are sufficient to specify the 
biomass-based criteria. This would apply to most of the South Atlantic 
Council's fisheries other than the Coral, Shrimp, Calico Scallop, and 
Sargassum FMPs.
    11. MSSTs should be made on a more precautionary basis. MSST should 
equal Bmsy.
    12. MSST requirement could be removed for some or all stocks. 
Consider the utility of the North Pacific Council's automatic 
rebuilding algorithm (harvest control rule (HCR) tiers 1 through 3) as 
a family of HCRs for managing vulnerable species. F is increasingly 
reduced as population size decreases; this is a viable management 
alternative to a MSST control rule. Guidelines should allow development 
of an FMP without reference points, if landings are capped and a data 
collection program is instituted.
    13. Specification of MSST should be optional. For some stocks, 
there is no information on MSST.
    14. Councils need criteria to determine the minimum level of data 
needed to define biological reference points.
    15. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not provide a mechanism for 
resolving differences that result when a stock is incorrectly declared 
overfished, but is later found not to be overfished. A process is 
needed to reconcile such differences.
    16. The guidelines fall short of defining or providing advice on a 
reasonable proxy for MSST.
    17. The guidelines do not address how to determine MSST for a stock 
complex.
    18. The term, ``overfished'' is a misnomer, implying an unproven 
link between fishing and depleted status.
    19. Uncertainty, risk, and precaution have to be built into 
estimates of SDC.
    20. How are highly variable species that can become overfished due 
to oceanographic shifts (e.g., Pacific whiting, northern anchovy, 
Pacific sardine, and market squid) to be treated?

Environmental Regime Change

    1. Environmental regime changes must be considered when adjusting 
rebuilding targets.
    A. Environmental regimes must be built into the calculation of 
reasonable rebuilding periods.
    B. The NS1 guidelines need to take into account a continuously 
changing environment.
    C. Because of the paucity of specific knowledge about environmental 
conditions and their effects on fish population abundance, rebuilding 
targets and MSY control rules should be specified in terms of ranges 
rather than a peak value.
    D. The guidelines need to better describe when a shift in 
environmental conditions indicates that a rebuilding target should be 
revised.
    2. Environmental regime shifts must not be used to adjust 
rebuilding targets.
    A. It is premature and inappropriate to address environmental 
changes in the NS1 guidelines.
    B. No well-known or well-supported case appears to exist of a 
currently exploited and depleted fish population whose productivity has 
been reduced because of environmental change unrelated to the adverse 
effects of fishing on the ecosystem.
    C. A policy should be adopted that no adjustments be based on an 
environmental regime change when setting overfished stock rebuilding 
plans.
    D. A reduction in F is appropriate whether or not a reduction in 
abundance occurred from fishing or from an environmental regime shift. 
Management still has to take what action it can to protect the fish 
stock and provide an opportunity for rebuilding.

Maximum Rebuilding Time and Target Rebuilding Time Horizons

    1. A minimum amount of time should be taken to rebuild a fishery 
(as short a time as possible).
    A. The one-generation time exception should be removed from the 
guidelines; leave the guidelines to say, ``rebuild in as short a time 
as possible.''
    B. The guidelines should be revised to provide that rebuilding be 
completed as soon as possible, even if it cannot be accomplished in 10 
years.
    C. The guidelines should be revised to avoid balloon payments in 
rebuilding plans (greater restrictions in the final years of the 
rebuilding plan).

[[Page 36242]]

    2. The maximum permissible time should be taken to rebuild a fish 
stock.
    A. Overzealous rebuilding strategies are likely to violate all the 
other provisions of OY relating to preservation of the industry, supply 
of food, maximum benefit to the environment, and preservation of 
cultural and economic aspects of commercial fishing.
    B. There should be maximum flexibility in calculating maximum 
rebuilding times. Goals should not be set too high, which results in 
unnecessary hardship and losses to consumers, communities, and 
industry.
    C. Time limits for rebuilding fisheries should be removed. Time 
limits for rebuilding should be replaced with a requirement to fish 
consistently at a rate that allows for stock growth in ``normal'' 
environmental conditions.
    3. More flexibility is needed in the NS1 guidelines to accommodate 
variations and contingencies in overfishing definitions to comply with 
National Standard 6.
    4. Under existing guidelines (that contain a discontinuity in 
rebuilding time horizon formula), a fishery is less restricted if the 
condition of a fish stock is so poor in abundance that it takes more 
than 10 years to rebuild than if the stock is in better condition and 
must be rebuilt in less than 10 years. This is the opposite of normal 
fishery management practices, which are the more restrictive when the 
condition of the stock is worse.

Definition of Overfishing Relating to the Fishery as a Whole

    1. The existing definitions of overfishing relating to the fishery 
as a whole should remain unchanged.
    A. Until now, NMFS has developed a clear, implementable vision as 
to how to manage ecosystems; it is premature to visit its overfishing 
definitions concerning a ``fishery as a whole.''
    B. Combining assessments and SDC for assemblages of minor stocks is 
problematic because that approach risks overfishing, extirpation, and 
extinction for some stocks. A stronger stock of a mix might be managed 
to the detriment of a weaker stock of a mix.
    C. Individual species should not be combined into complexes for the 
purpose of management aimed at achieving NS1. There is too much risk 
associated with choosing indicator species among stocks that are 
unknown status.
    2. Guidelines on management of interrelated stocks should be 
revised.
    A. Guidelines should mandate an assessment of aggregated stocks. 
When stocks are harvested as part of a fishery in conjunction with one 
another, overfishing of a single stock is permissible by law.
    B. Guidelines should allow for bycatch when multiple stocks are 
harvested together to avoid wasteful discarding.
    C. There is no basis in the Magnuson-Stevens Act for any exception 
to the prohibition of overfishing in NS1. The guideline for generating 
that exception should be eliminated.
    D. NMFS should not allow overfishing of individual stocks in a 
mixed-stock fishery.
    E. Guidelines should be revised to rely upon vulnerable stock 
criteria prepared by the American Fisheries Society to identify weak 
stocks.
    F. Both a ``representative species'' and a ``weakest species'' 
should be used as indicator stocks to determine status of assemblages 
that contain unknown status stocks.
    G. Better guidance on flexibility under NS1 is needed. For example, 
the New England Council should have the flexibility to rebuild to 
Bmsy for groundfish and \1/2\Bmsy for spiny 
dogfish, based on ecosystem function and common sense.
    H. Guidelines should be revised so that Councils do not have to 
rebuild each stock to Bmsy, rather they can rebuild their 
stocks to a biomass that produces OY. Bmsy cannot be 
attained for an entire complex of stocks at once.

Rebuilding Plans and Rebuilding Targets Requiring Revision

    1. Revisions to rebuilding plans should be the exception, and 
should only be developed under certain circumstances.
    A. Only in limited and well-defined circumstances should a 
rebuilding plan be allowed to exceed the original time limit.
    B. The Magnuson-Stevens Act clearly provides that NMFS shall review 
rebuilding plans at ``routine intervals not to exceed two years.''
    C. Rebuilding plans can be adjusted as long as (1) no plan is less 
protective as a result of overfishing, and (2) measures do not allow 
overfishing on stocks being rebuilt.
    D. It may be reasonable to shorten or lengthen a rebuilding period 
(due to scientific information showing that a biomass target should be 
changed), as long as: (1) Specific limits for how much the rebuilding 
period is adjusted are addressed, (2) there is no additional risk to a 
stock, and (3) rebuilding is maintained at least to the original 
trajectory. Overages in a given year would have to be subtracted in the 
subsequent year.
    E. Rebuilding plans should be extended only when the biomass 
targets are increased by more than 100 percent.
    2. There should be maximum flexibility for making revisions to 
rebuilding plans.
    A. Many current rebuilding targets are too draconian and virtually 
guarantee the permanent non-participation of some fishing communities.
    B. Changes in targets should necessitate minor adjustments in F to 
ensure that progress is always made in rebuilding the stock.
    C. Guidelines need to clarify when the precautionary approach is 
appropriate. Is it appropriate to use the precautionary approach for 
conservative assumptions for model inputs, or for policies regarding 
conservative harvest outputs? Or for both?
    D. Small adjustments in F would require immediate action; larger 
adjustments would be phased in over a multi-year schedule.
    E. The guidelines need to be revised to better explain whether 
rebuilding periods should be lengthened/shortened in reaction to 
unusually high or low recruitment.
    F. The guidelines need to consider how to give fishery managers 
more flexible options when stocks rebuild more quickly than forecast.
    3. The guidelines need to be revised to describe when revisions to 
rebuilding targets are necessary and appropriate.
    4. The guidelines need to provide explicit advice about the level 
of management action required for a stock that is not overfished (but 
not rebuilt), that is not in a required rebuilding program, and for 
which F is less than the Flim. In such a case, the 
guidelines should state that such a stock may be managed under the 
appropriate F that will result in the stock achieving the 
Bmsy on a long-term average basis without a rebuilding 
period.

Flim (Currently Known as MFMT)

    1. Alternative approaches to establishing allowable threshold 
levels and guidance encouraging the use of other indicators of 
overfishing (e.g., declining fish catch size or skewed sex ratios) must 
be provided.
    2. Guidance for NS1 should allow for a number of years (rather than 
immediately) for fishing effort (i.e., fishing mortality) to be brought 
down to required levels.
    3. Better and more specific guidance is needed as to when 
overfishing of reef fish species occurs.
    4. Guidance is needed for addressing MFMT when estimates for that 
value are not available.

[[Page 36243]]

    5. Current guidelines should be revised such that management can 
evaluate rebuilding with regard to a target F, rather than MFMT (i.e., 
Flim).

OY and OY Control Rules

    1. Further guidance is needed on the definition of OY and its 
definition in a mixed-stock fishery.
    2. Further guidance is needed on the difference between a single-
year OY and long-term OY.
    3. Fishery management should be based on OY control rules, rather 
than MSY control rules.
    4. The use of control rules must be defined in the context of broad 
biological, social, and economic goals of a fishery.
    5. The aim of NS1 should be to operate a fishery around an MSY 
stock size and an F value similarly fluctuating around the fishing 
mortality rate that produces OY (FOY), not a biomass above 
Bmsy and an F value below FOY.
    6. Guidelines need to make very clear what is required for 
management when biomass is greater than MSST but less than 
Bmsy and when F is less than Fthreshold.
    7. Guidance is needed to address MSY and OY when estimates of those 
parameters are not available.

International Fisheries

    1. Guidance is needed to explain what kinds of responses are 
required for U.S. fisheries that comprise a small portion of a larger, 
basin-scale pelagic fishery for HMS such as tuna and billfish. For 
example, the U.S. Hawaiian longline fishery accounts for only 1.4 
percent of the total Pacific-wide catch of bigeye tuna, thus any 
response by the Hawaii fishery should be weighted by its contribution 
to the total fishing mortality on the stock or by some other relevant 
factor.
    2. How would a recovery plan be developed for a longline fishery or 
any of the pelagic fisheries managed by a Council where any action, no 
matter how conservative, will have little or no effect on stock 
recovery? NMFS needs to develop policies and guidelines for rebuilding 
plans that reflect the U.S. contribution to total fishing mortality, 
rather than exacting punitive measures on fisheries that have 
negligible effects on the entire stock.
    3. NS1 guidelines should take into account the management measures 
of neighboring countries for management of transboundary stocks. A 
Council's share in the stock and U.S. fishermen's share in total 
landings might be quite small, so what would be the U.S. role in 
management?

Miscellaneous

    1. Guidelines need to describe how and when to incorporate 
uncertainty, risk, and precaution.
    2. MSY, MSST, and MFMT are not targets, rather they are limits--
they are upper limits of a range of safe fishing. Targets should remain 
in a safe zone above the Bmsy and below the Fmsy.
    3. National standards should be applied equally during the 
development of an FMP. No one standard should override ``supplementary 
standards'' that are of the same importance.
    4. Fishery management actions taken in state waters should not 
impair compliance with NS1.
    5. When annual TACs are used, confidence intervals (greater than 
50-percent chance of success) need to be set to better ensure that the 
limit (TAC) chosen will not be exceeded.
    6. A new term should be established for the state of resource 
abundance when it is too low (other than overfished).
    7. Is OY the optimum for a given year, or an average over many 
years?
    8. Is MSY dynamic, or a maximum average yield?
    9. In the calculation of rebuilding targets, such factors as 
predator/prey relationships, competition for habitat, and carrying 
capacity need to be examined. These factors can affect the time to 
rebuilding and the level to which a stock can be rebuilt.
    10. How can multispecies biological reference points for 
substantially interdependent stocks be determined?
    11. Is MSY a cap, or not? NMFS has advised the Councils that MSY 
can be exceeded for several years before the Council takes action. Are 
we required to have measures in place to prevent the harvest from 
exceeding MSY?
    12. Given limited scientific and economic information, how should 
precautionary management be balanced against economic impacts? In 
unknown status situations, current guidance for determining stock 
status can result in very constraining management, which causes 
significant economic impacts to the fishery.
    13. If the NS1 guidelines are revised, will the Councils be asked 
to revise all rebuilding plans at once? Will the current rebuilding 
plans be valid during the conversion period?

NMFS NS1 Guidelines Working Group

    A NMFS NS1 Guidelines Working Group (Working Group) consisting of 
NMFS fishery scientists and fishery managers and a NOAA General Counsel 
attorney advisor was formed in April 2003, to develop recommendations 
to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), as to the 
following: (1) Whether or not the NS1 guidelines should be revised at 
all; (2) if revisions are recommended, what parts of the NS1 guidelines 
should have priority for revision; and (3) whether all suggested 
revisions are consistent with the objectives that they be technically 
sound, increase comprehensiveness (i.e., provide guidance for a broader 
range of situations), add specificity (i.e., provide more guidance on 
how to handle particular situations), improve clarity (i.e., are easier 
for non-scientists to understand), and recognize scientific and 
biological constraints.

Working Group's Recommendations

    The Working Group recommended revisions to the NS1 guidelines to 
the AA, following: (1) Review of public comments that NMFS received on 
the ANPR regarding the usefulness of the existing NS1 guidelines, (2) 
an agency workshop in April 2003, and (3) further discussions by the 
Working Group. The Working Group believes that the proposed revisions 
contained in this proposed rule and described herein will improve the 
ability of Councils to develop meaningful SDC for definitions of 
``depleted'' and ``overfishing'' and for rebuilding plans that 
facilitate compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Several of the 
proposed revisions would also provide flexibility in rebuilding 
programs, to the extent possible, to take into account the needs of 
fishing communities and fishing industry infrastructure.
    The most substantive proposed changes to the NS1 guidelines, in 
terms of changes to fishery management practices, would be more 
emphasis on the requirements for quickly ending overfishing and for the 
need to manage using OY control rules when data are sufficient to do 
so, but, at the same time, to simplify and, within limits, to relax 
requirements for rebuilding time horizons. However, relaxed constraints 
on requirements for rebuilding time horizons could not be used to 
justify continued overfishing. NMFS proposes to emphasize better 
control of current F (thus preventing overfishing) because F is more 
within the control of fishery managers than the rate of rebuilding, 
which is much more subject to variable environmental conditions, 
especially over the long term. Elimination of overfishing is a 
precursor to rebuilding overfished stocks.

Proposed Revisions to the NS1 Guidelines

    NMFS proposes the following changes to the NS1 guidelines:

[[Page 36244]]

Terminology

    In the NS1 guidelines, the term ``depleted'' would replace the term 
``overfished,'' the term ``biomass limit (Blim)'' would 
replace the term ``minimum stock size threshold,'' and the term 
``maximum fishing mortality limit (Flim)'' would replace the 
term ``maximum fishing mortality threshold.''
    The NS1 guidelines currently use the term ``threshold'' to indicate 
a property of control rules that is usually defined as a ``limit'' in 
much of the published scientific literature and in other fisheries 
fora, including international fisheries organizations. To bring the NS1 
guidelines into conformance with common usage, ``threshold,'' if used 
at all, should denote a ``red flag'' or ``warning zone'' that is 
reached before a ``limit.'' In this context, a biomass threshold would 
be a larger biomass value than its corresponding biomass limit, and a 
fishing mortality threshold would be a lower value than its 
corresponding fishing mortality limit.
    The term ``overfished'' is used in both the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
and NS1 guidelines to denote a stock in need of rebuilding. 
``Overfished'' is also used in the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the context 
of any stock or stock complex that is subjected to a rate or level of 
fishing mortality that constitutes ``overfishing.'' However, stocks can 
become depleted for reasons other than, or in addition to, overfishing, 
such as environmental changes, pollution, and habitat destruction. The 
best available scientific information typically does not enable NMFS to 
distinguish among these factors, or between fishing and these factors. 
NMFS believes that using the less specific term ``depleted'' is 
appropriate to clarify the usage of ``overfished'' in the NS1 
guidelines. ``Depleted'' would be used to indicate that a stock or 
stock complex must be rebuilt, regardless of the cause of depletion. 
Recognizing that factors other than fishing can lead to depleted stocks 
does not imply any changes in fishery management obligations or 
measures to address the depleted status.

Core Stocks and Stock Assemblages

    Fishery Management Units and Regulated Stocks.
    A fishery means one or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a 
unit for purposes of conservation and management. Fishery Management 
Plans (FMP) are developed to regulate fisheries that have been 
determined to be in need of conservation and management. Each FMP will 
contain one to several Fishery Management Units (FMU) (see section 
600.320(d)) and each FMU will contain and/or affect one to several 
stocks. The SDC requirements of NS1 are intended to apply to the 
regulated stocks specifically listed in these FMUs. Generally, these 
are stocks that are the target of the fishery or are commonly caught in 
the fishery. It is only the regulated stocks in the FMUs for which the 
NS1 requirement to establish MSY, OY and SDC pertain. Other stocks may 
be mentioned and/or listed in the FMP because of interest in data 
collection for these stocks, their importance as part of the marine 
ecosystem, or other reasons not necessarily related to conservation and 
management.
    Two categories of regulated stocks would be exempt from the 
requirement to specify SDC: stocks primarily dependent on hatchery 
production, and stocks listed as ``endangered'' or ``threatened'' under 
the Endangered Species Act.

Core Stocks and Stock Assemblages

    For the regulated stocks, the terms ``stock or stock complex'' 
would be replaced with ``core stock or stock assemblage'' in the NS1 
guidelines, and FMPs could be revised so as to manage regulated stocks, 
to the extent possible as core stocks and stock assemblages. The status 
of core stocks with respect to SDC should be measured on a stock-
specific basis, and the status of assemblages could be measured either 
on the basis of an aggregate SDC for the assemblage or on the basis of 
a suitable indicator stock within the assemblage.
    ``Core'' stocks may include key target species (stocks) 
historically important species that may now be relatively low in 
abundance, important bycatch species, or highly vulnerable species. 
Councils usually have adequate data to measure the status of core 
stocks relative to their SDC. Core stocks can also be a member of an 
assemblage and can serve as an indicator stock for that assemblage.
    A ``stock assemblage'' would be a group of fish stocks that are 
geographically related, are caught by the same gear, and have 
sufficiently similar life history so they can be managed together based 
on an aggregate Flim, Blim, and OY, or on stock-
specific Flims, Blims, and OYs for indicator 
stocks. It is possible that some stocks having unknown status could not 
be assigned to a stock assemblage due to their lack of conformity to 
stocks in a given FMP's stock assemblages. The selection of an 
indicator stock(s) for an assemblage would need to include 
documentation for the suitability of that selection to serve as a 
representative for the status of the assemblage.
    This recommendation for SDC determination of assemblages is based 
on the practical aspects of measuring the status of every regulated 
stock. In the ``NMFS 2003 Report to Congress on the Status of the U.S. 
Fisheries,'' 503 of the 909 stocks reported had an unknown status 
regarding ``overfishing,'' and 541 of the 909 stocks had an unknown 
status regarding ``overfished.'' Because funding priorities require 
that stocks in the most important commercial and recreational fisheries 
continue to receive priority in terms of research, surveys, and stock 
assessments, many of the stocks in the unknown status category will 
likely remain that way for some time. Because many of these unknown 
status stocks co-occur with stocks of known status in multi-stock 
fisheries, monitoring and controlling the fishing mortality for at 
least one stock in the multi-stock fishery provides some knowledge and 
protection for the other stocks. Therefore, NMFS recommends that the 
Councils should group stocks for each FMP, to the extent possible, into 
stock assemblages in order to improve status determinations for stocks 
that currently have an unknown status with respect to their SDC.

Fishing Mortality Thresholds

    The definition for Flim would remain the same as the 
current definition of MFMT but, where appropriate, requirements for 
maintaining or reducing F below Flim would be strengthened 
to provide a lower tolerance for overfishing. Later, the general 
requirement for OY control rules that set Ftarget below 
Flim will be described as a mechanism to prevent 
overfishing. But OY control rules are not sufficient to address the 
special circumstances of depleted stocks.
    Current guidelines state: ``In cases where overfishing is 
occurring, Council action must be sufficient to end overfishing.'' 
However, the guidelines don't specify the timeframe for ending 
overfishing. The NMFS Working Group proposed the following specific 
guidance to address the requirements of section 304(e)(4)(A) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act: ``In cases where overfishing is occurring, 
Council action must be sufficient to end overfishing as soon as 
practicable [should be as short a time as possible]. The Council action 
must include a rationale for the time period selected for ending 
overfishing. The appropriate time period for ending overfishing may be 
influenced by considerations including those related to mixed-stock 
fisheries. Phase-in periods for reducing the fishing mortality rate 
down to the level of Flim

[[Page 36245]]

should be permitted only if the following two conditions are met: (A) 
For stocks that are depleted or are under a rebuilding plan, the 
maximum allowable rebuilding time is no greater than it would have been 
without the phase-in period; and (B) fishing mortality rate levels 
must, at the least, be reduced by a substantial and measurable amount 
each year.'' NMFS invites public comment on the Working Group's 
recommended measure, as well as the proposed measure pertaining to 
section 304(e)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act contained in this 
proposed rule. The measure being proposed in this proposed rule is 
that, whenever a new FMP with one or more rebuilding plans, or an 
action to amend a current FMP to revise an existing rebuilding plan is 
submitted for Secretarial review, the Ftarget for any stock 
in that FMP that is overfished must be less than Flim, 
beginning in the first year and thereafter, except under circumstances 
listed in section 304(e)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (also see 
section 600.310(f)(4)(ii)(A) of this proposed rule). Rebuilding plans 
already in place would not be affected by this proposed revision to the 
NS1 guidelines, unless a revision to such a rebuilding plan is made for 
other reasons and submitted for Secretarial review, in which case the 
revised rebuilding plan would need to prevent overfishing beginning in 
the first year of the revised rebuilding plan, unless the factors in 
section 304(e)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are taken into account 
(see Sec.  600.310(f)(4)(1)).

Stock Size Thresholds

    NMFS believes that there is a need to (1) simplify the requirements 
for specifying and calculating Blim and (2) emphasize its 
role as a secondary, rather than a primary, consideration relative to 
the need to reduce F and end overfishing.
    NMFS proposes that a Blim or proxy continue to be 
required, either at the level of individual stocks, for core stocks, or 
at the level of indicator stocks or of an assemblage-wide aggregate 
amount for stock assemblages, with limited exceptions. A core stock, 
indicator stock, or stock assemblage that falls below the 
Blim would be deemed to be ``depleted'' and would require a 
rebuilding plan.
    The NS1 guidelines would be simplified to define the default 
Blim as \1/2\Bmsy. In rare cases, it would be 
possible to justify a Blim below \1/2\Bmsy (e.g., 
for stocks with high natural fluctuations that result in biomass 
frequently falling below \1/2\Bmsy, even when overfishing 
does not occur); in this case, the Blim could be set near 
the lower end of some appropriate range (e.g., the lower 95-percent 
confidence interval) of natural fluctuations that would result if the 
stock or assemblage was not subjected to overfishing. On the other 
hand, the Blim could be set higher than \1/2\Bmsy 
for stocks that are rarely expected to fall below some level 
appreciably higher than \1/2\Bmsy.
    A Blim or proxy should be specified with the following 
exceptions: If an implemented OY control rule results in an F at least 
as conservative as would have been the case if Blim had been 
used, then explicit use of a Blim would not be required. If 
NMFS determines that existing data are grossly inadequate or 
insufficient for providing a defensible estimate of Blim or 
a reasonable proxy thereof, specification of such would not be 
required. Such cases should be relatively rare, particularly for core 
stocks, and explicit justification must always be provided whenever a 
Blim or proxy is not specified. Guidance on how to address 
the lack of a Blim or proxy in unknown status fisheries is 
further described under ``Rebuilding Targets'' below.

Rebuilding Time Horizons

    NMFS proposes to modify the rebuilding time horizon so that it 
still must be as short a time as possible, taking into account the 
appropriate factors, and by removing the current discontinuity. Under 
this proposed modification, if Tmin + one generation time 
(GT) exceeds 10 years, then Tmax = Tmin + one GT; 
otherwise Tmax is 10 years. For example, if Tmin 
= 6 years and GT = 5 years, then Tmax = 11 years. If 
Tmin plus one GT <= 10 years, then Tmax is 10 
years. For example, if Tmin = 4 or 5 years and GT = 5 years, 
then Tmax = 10 years.
    The definition of the maximum rebuilding time horizon in the 
current NS1 guidelines, while consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
contains an inherent discontinuity, which can prove problematic to 
implement due to biological uncertainties in calculation of the minimum 
time to rebuild. NMFS currently defines Tmin in its 
technical guidance as the minimum rebuilding time based on the number 
of years it takes to achieve a 50-percent probability that biomass will 
equal or exceed Bmsy at least once, when F = 0, and 
Tmax is the maximum permissible target rebuilding time. 
Under the current NS1 guidelines, Tmax may not exceed 10 
years if Tmin is less than 10 years, and Tmax may 
not exceed Tmin plus one generation time, if Tmin 
is greater than or equal to 10 years. This creates a discontinuity. For 
example, if GT = 5 years and Tmin equals 9 years, then GT is 
not a factor and Tmax equals 10 years. But if 
Tmin is just 1 year longer (i.e., 10 years), then 
Tmax equals Tmin + GT = 15 years, so that 
Tmax is considerably longer for a fish stock having a 
Tmin of 10 years and a GT = 5 years compared to a stock 
having a Tmin of 9 years and a GT = 5 years. The best 
scientific estimate of Tmin always has a probability 
distribution due to the expected variability in biological stock 
productivity during the rebuilding period. Experience has shown that it 
is unreasonable use of this best scientific information to have a sharp 
difference in management response, and resultant impact on the fishery, 
when, for example, Tmin has a 49-percent chance of exceeding 
10 years, versus the management response when Tmin has a 51-
percent chance of exceeding 10 years. Accounting for this biological 
uncertainty in Tmin, while taking into account the 
biological specifics of a stock or stock complex, requires a smoother 
transition in Tmax calculation. The proposed modification to 
Tmax described above would not alter the general requirement 
to rebuild a stock in as short a time as possible while taking into 
account various factors, including the needs of fishing communities. In 
cases where the needs of fishing communities merit extending the 
rebuilding time horizon beyond Tmin, the target time to 
rebuild, Ttarget, would be bounded by Tmin and 
Tmax. The best scientific information available typically 
will not allow precise measurement of the needs of fishing communities 
or economic benefits of a particular Ttarget value. Because 
of these difficulties, a reasonable default value for setting 
Ttarget should be midway between Tmin and 
Tmax. This presumptive value should be used unless an 
analysis is available that demonstrates that the status and biology of 
the stocks in question or the needs of fishing communities require 
application of an earlier or later target time to rebuild.

Rebuilding Targets

    NMFS proposes that, when it is determined that data are inadequate 
to estimate rebuilding targets in terms of Bmsy, or its 
proxy, and Tmin, it would be permissible to rely solely on 
Flim. In such instances, keeping F below Flim to 
produce at least a 50-percent chance that the stock would increase in 
abundance would be considered a rebuilding F proxy. It would also be 
permissible to declare the stock to be rebuilt if the realized average 
F has been substantially below the Flim (default is 75 
percent of Flim) for at least two generation times, provided 
there is no

[[Page 36246]]

other scientific evidence that biomass is still ``depleted.''
    Under the current NS1 guidelines, once any stock or assemblage has 
been declared to be ``overfished'' (i.e., below its Blim), 
it must be rebuilt to Bmsy or its proxy before being 
declared to be fully rebuilt and to no longer require a rebuilding 
plan. The reason for requiring rebuilding to Bmsy is that 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires restoration of the stock's capacity 
to produce MSY; this can only be assured if the stock is returned to 
that level of abundance.

Revision of Rebuilding Plans

    Because any approved rebuilding plan was determined to be based 
upon the best available scientific information and to take into account 
the expected variability in future stock productivity, NMFS proposes 
that rebuilding plans need not be adjusted in response to each minor 
stock assessment update. However, if a rebuilding plan needs to be 
adjusted, then NMFS proposes new guidance to clarify when different 
parameters (e.g., the sequence of rebuilding Ftargets or the 
time horizon (Ttarget)) can be revised. Note that the 
Ftargets can be the same or different for each year of a 
rebuilding plan, but they should be listed in sequence, year-by-year, 
or specified by a formula (control rule).
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that progress toward ending 
overfishing and rebuilding affected fish stocks be evaluated for 
adequacy at least every 2 years, but does not define ``adequate 
progress.'' Also, the current guidelines do not include guidance on 
procedures to follow when rebuilding plans require revision after 
initiation. NMFS proposes specifying two circumstances for revising a 
rebuilding plan: (1) Rebuilding is occurring much faster or slower than 
expected due to natural fluctuations in stock productivity, or (2) a 
new stock assessment indicates that the best scientific estimate of one 
or more parameters in the rebuilding calculations (i.e., generation 
time, Tmin, Bmsy, etc.) has changed 
substantially.
    NMFS proposes that, if the rate of rebuilding of a stock (i.e., the 
amount of biomass attained for a given year compared to projected 
biomass for that year under a rebuilding plan) is occurring 
substantially faster than projected, the former sequence of 
Ftargets for that stock should be retained in order to 
rebuild the stock in as short a time as possible, and to allow 
transition to an OY control rule. If rebuilding is occurring 
substantially slower than initially projected, even though 
Ftargets for that stock have not been exceeded, the 
rebuilding plan should be revised by reducing the rebuilding 
Ftargets and/or by lengthening the rebuilding time horizon 
Ttarget. In the case of slower rebuilding, if the existing 
Ftargets have been exceeded, future Ftargets 
should be reduced to the extent necessary to compensate for previous 
overruns (years when Ftargets were exceeded) before 
considering any lengthening of the former rebuilding time horizon. If 
rebuilding to Bmsy with at least a 50-percent probability is 
no longer deemed possible by the rebuilding time horizon, even at F=0, 
then a new rebuilding plan must be prepared (new rebuilding time 
horizon and sequence of Ftargets).
    If a new stock assessment indicates that current stock abundance or 
any of the rebuilding parameters have changed in such a way as to allow 
substantial increases in the sequence of Ftargets in the 
existing rebuilding plan, then the rebuilding plan may be maintained or 
may be revised by increasing the rebuilding Ftargets and/or 
by shortening the rebuilding time horizon. Maintaining the current 
Ftarget and Ttarget would simply allow for faster 
rebuilding and sooner transition to an OY control rule. If scientific 
estimates of stock abundance or rebuilding parameters change in such a 
way as to suggest that substantial reductions in Ftargets 
would be necessary to rebuild the core stock or stock assemblages 
within the specified time horizon, and if rebuilding 
Ftargets have not been exceeded, then the rebuilding plan 
should be revised by reducing the rebuilding Ftargets and/or 
by lengthening the rebuilding time horizon. If the existing rebuilding 
Ftargets have been exceeded, the existing former 
Ttarget must be maintained to the extent possible, and 
future Ftargets must be reduced to the extent necessary to 
compensate for previous overruns (years when Ftarget was 
exceeded).
    NMFS proposes specific guidance to be added to the NS1 guidelines 
in Sec.  600.310(f)(5)(v) to cover the circumstance when a stock is no 
longer overfished at the end of its maximum rebuilding period, but the 
stock is not yet rebuilt. In such cases, F should not be increased 
until the stock has been demonstrated to be rebuilt. If the rebuilding 
F is at Flim and the stock is not rebuilt by 
Tmax, then the rebuilding F should be reduced to 75 percent 
of Flim until the stock is rebuilt.

OY Control Rules

    NMFS proposes that the current requirement to develop ``target'' 
(OY) control rules, in addition to ``limit'' (MSY) control rules, be 
strengthened, so that the current wording of ``may'' would be changed 
to ``must.'' OY and MSY control rules would have to be developed for 
each core stock and stock assemblage (either through one or more 
indicator stocks for the stock assemblage or an assemblage-wide control 
rule), unless NMFS determines that data are inadequate to do so for a 
given stock. Targets are set with the intention that they typically 
will be achieved. OY control rules must be less than the MSY control 
rule for all levels of stock abundance. To the extent possible, the OY 
control rule should incorporate social, economic, and ecological 
factors.
    Control rules are harvest strategies, such as (1) remove a constant 
catch in each year such that the estimated stock size exceeds an 
appropriate lower bound; (2) remove a constant fraction of the biomass 
each year; (3) allow a constant escapement level each year; or (4) vary 
F as a continuous function of stock size. Many existing FMPs have no OY 
control rules (target control rules); some existing FMPs have MSY 
control rules (limit control rules); and some existing FMPs set the OY 
control rules equal to the MSY control rule.
    Although these proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines clearly 
establish a general rule that the target (OY control rule) is to be set 
safely below the limit (MSY control rule) in order to prevent 
overfishing and to take into account social, economic, and ecological 
factors, such an approach may not be feasible when there is 
insufficient knowledge to establish either OY control rules or MSY 
control rules. In circumstances where there is no meaningful estimate 
or proxy for MSY, it may be satisfactory to set OY directly on the 
basis of available social, economic, and biological information, rather 
than to set OY at less than a measured MSY, but the underlying science 
and supporting administrative record would need to clearly support the 
individual and the fact-specific determination and OY must still 
prevent overfishing and stock depletion.

International Fisheries

    NMFS proposes that the NS1 guidelines be amplified with respect to 
international HMS and straddling stocks in which the United States has 
an interest. Principles to be applied would be the following: (1) To 
generally rely on international organizations in which the United 
States participates to determine the status of HMS stocks or 
assemblages under their purview, including specification of SDC and the 
process to apply to them; (2) if the international organization in 
which the United States is a participant does not have a process for 
developing a formal plan to rebuild a specific overfished HMS stock or 
assemblage, to use the

[[Page 36247]]

Magnuson-Stevens Act process for development of rebuilding plans by a 
Council or NMFS to be promoted in the international organization or 
arrangement; and (3) to develop appropriate domestic fishery 
regulations to implement internationally agreed upon measures or 
appropriate U.S. measures consistent with a rebuilding plan, giving due 
consideration to the position of the U.S. domestic fleet relative to 
other participants in the fishery.

Transitional Steps To Implement Proposed Revisions to NS1 Guidelines

    If the proposed revisions to terminology are adopted, NMFS proposes 
that the Councils and NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary), in the case of Atlantic HMS, begin using the new terms in 
place of the old terms and revise FMP language the next time a Council 
submits an FMP amendment for Secretarial review. NMFS would begin using 
the new terms in its first Annual Report to Congress on the Status of 
U.S. Fisheries after the effective date of the revised NS1 guidelines. 
Any codified text in 50 CFR part 600 that contains the old terminology, 
such as ``overfished,'' ``minimum stock size threshold,'' or ``maximum 
fishing mortality threshold,'' would be revised by NMFS.
    For the proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines other than 
terminology, the new guidelines would apply to some, but not all, new 
actions submitted by a Council. Any new action submitted by a Council 
that includes new or revised SDC, OY control rules, or rebuilding plans 
would need to be developed and evaluated according to the revised NS1 
guidelines. However, if a Council action that includes new or revised 
SDC, OY control rules, or rebuilding plans is already under development 
and is at the stage that a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 
notice of availability has already been published in the Federal 
Register, when the revised NS1 guidelines become effective, then a 
Council could submit the action under the ``old'' or ``new'' NS1 
guidelines. If an FMP, FMP amendment, or other regulatory action not 
accompanied by an EIS has already been adopted by a Council for 
Secretarial review before the new NS1 guidelines become effective, then 
the Council could submit the action under the ``old'' or ``new'' NS1 
guidelines.
    After any final rule implementing revisions to the NS1 guidelines 
becomes effective, if a Council submits an action (e.g., annual 
specifications, an FMP amendment, interim rulemaking, or a regulatory 
amendment) that does not involve new or revised SDC, OY control rules, 
or rebuilding plans for a stock, then that action could be reviewed and 
approved without the FMP being amended to bring existing SDC, OY 
control rules, and rebuilding plans into conformance with the new 
guidelines. The proposed action would still need to be in conformance 
with all of the national standard guidelines to be approvable. Any FMP 
amendment or other regulatory action that involves: (1) Proposed SDC, 
an OY control rule, or a rebuilding plan for a stock not previously 
managed by SDC or by a rebuilding plan; or (2) proposed revisions to 
SDC, an OY control rule, or a rebuilding plan for a stock already 
managed under SDC or by a rebuilding plan, then the proposed SDC, OY 
control rule, and/or rebuilding plan would need to comply with the new 
NS1 guidelines.
    Regarding the proposed recommendation that stocks in FMPs be 
managed according to core stocks and stock assemblages, if a Council 
determines that a given FMP has only core stocks (e.g., the Mid-
Atlantic Council's Spiny Dogfish FMP, the New England Council's 
Atlantic Sea Scallops FMP, and the Gulf of Mexico Council's Stone Crab 
FMP), then the Council should make such a determination with 
accompanying rationale in its next FMP amendment.
    In the case of an FMP that has a mixture of SDC known stocks and 
stocks having an unknown status related to SDC (e.g., Snapper-Grouper 
FMP), when a Council begins to align its management under ``core 
stocks'' and ``stock assemblages,'' the Council could begin such 
realignment in a stepwise fashion (in a series of separate FMP actions) 
for given core stocks or stock assemblages, once new or revised SDC, OY 
control rules, or rebuilding plans are developed. If a Council 
determines that the stepwise method is problematic, it could take 
action to realign all of the FMP's stocks into core stocks and stock 
assemblages in one action.
    If some stocks are not being effectively managed under a given FMP 
because their status relative to SDC is unknown, and the proposed 
revisions to the NS1 guidelines are approved, then the Council should 
re-evaluate those stocks as soon as possible, to decide whether or not 
any grouping of some or all of the unknown status stocks could be 
managed by SDC under one or more indicator stocks, or through stock 
assemblage-wide SDC. A Council should clearly designate which stocks in 
the FMP are in the FMUs and thus are subject to SDC and to inclusion in 
the NMFS Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. 
Stocks that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act would be exempt from being evaluated according to SDC, but 
must be evaluated against SDC within 1 year of being de-listed. 
Finally, stocks that are primarily dependent on artificial propagation 
from hatcheries would be exempt from being evaluated according to SDC. 
If any stocks are currently undergoing overfishing as part of an 
approved rebuilding plan (e.g., reductions in F are being phased in 
over a number of years until F is less than or equal to 
Flim), then, the first time that the Council submits a 
revised rebuilding plan for those stocks, overfishing must be 
prevented, beginning in the first year of the revised rebuilding plan, 
except under circumstances listed under section 304(e)(4)(A) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    In general, the Councils would not be required to amend their 
existing SDC and rebuilding plans approved under the SFA by any date 
certain, with the following exceptions. In the event that NMFS, on 
behalf of the Secretary, determines that a fishery is overfished, or 
approaching an overfished condition under section 304(e)(1) or (2) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or that a rebuilding plan needs revision as 
described under section 304(e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, then the 
Council would need to take action consistent with the revised NS1 
guidelines.

Proposed Changes in Codified Text Listed by Issues/Categories

    For clarity and convenience of the reader, this proposed rule would 
revise Sec.  600.310 in its entirety. The following describes the 
specific changes to Sec.  600.310 that are being proposed.
    In the proposed revisions to Sec.  600.310, current paragraph (d) 
would become paragraph (e), current paragraph (e) would become 
paragraph (f), and current paragraph (f) would become paragraph (d). 
The newly numbered paragraphs would cover these headings: Paragraph (a) 
National Standard 1, paragraph (b) General, paragraph (c) MSY, 
paragraph (d) OY, paragraph (e) Overfishing, and paragraph (f) Ending 
overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks.
    A new paragraph (b)(3) would be added to list ``Definition of 
terms'' for terms used frequently in Sec.  600.310. These terms would 
be defined briefly in paragraph (b)(3) for the convenience of the 
reader which is not intended to supersede more detailed descriptions of 
the terms elsewhere in Sec.  600.310.

[[Page 36248]]

    The following are the proposed changes to Sec.  600.310.

Terminology and Definitions

    Throughout Sec.  600.310, ``minimum stock size threshold'' and 
``MSST'' would be replaced with ``minimum biomass limit'' and 
``Blim''; ``maximum fishing mortality threshold'' and 
``MFMT'' would be replaced with ``maximum fishing mortality limit'' and 
``Flim''; and ``overfished'' would be replaced with 
``depleted.''
    In Sec.  600.310, paragraph (b) would be divided into paragraph (b) 
introductory text and paragraph (b)(1); paragraph (b)(2) would be added 
to provide an overview of the relationship between MSY, OY, SDC, and 
rebuilding; and paragraph (b)(3) would be added to define briefly terms 
used in Sec.  600.310.
    In Sec.  600.310, under the newly redesignated paragraph (e), 
paragraph (e)(1)(iii) would be revised to explain why the term 
``overfished,'' used to describe a condition of low abundance of a fish 
stock, should be replaced with the term ``depleted.''

Core Stocks, Fisheries, and Stock Assemblages

    In Sec.  600.310, paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii), and 
(b)(4)(iii) would be added to describe core stocks and stock 
assemblages.
    The phrase ``stock or stock complex'' would be replaced with ``core 
stock or stock assemblage'' throughout Sec.  600.310.
    In Sec.  600.310, paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would be revised to remove 
the term ``mixed stock,'' add the term ``stock assemblages,'' and 
clarify that a stock assemblage's MSY and SDC may be specified for the 
stock assemblage as a whole, or may be listed as unknown if the 
assemblage is managed on the basis of one or more indicator stocks that 
do have stock-specific MSY and SDC.

Fishing Mortality Limits

    In Sec.  600.310, under paragraph (c):
    1. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would be revised by adding two sentences to 
further describe the ``MSY control rule.''
    2. The first sentence in paragraph (c)(3) would be revised to 
indicate that other measures could serve as reasonable proxies for the 
``MSY fishing mortality rate (Fmsy).'' A sentence would also 
be added at the end of paragraph (c)(3) to indicate that there is 
greater risk when setting OY close to a proxy-based MSY estimate than 
when setting OY against MSY, itself.
    In Sec.  600.310, under the newly redesignated paragraph (d), 
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) would be revised by further clarifying that all 
forms of fishing mortality must be accounted for when evaluating 
overfishing.
    In Sec.  600.310, under the newly redesignated paragraph (e):
    1. Two sentences would be added to paragraph (e)(1)(ii) to further 
explain the role that fishing at an excessive fishing mortality rate 
has in reducing the capacity of a stock to produce MSY.
    2. A new sentence would be added to paragraph (e)(2)(i) to explain 
the relationship between Flim and the OY control rule.
    3. Paragraph (e)(6)(iii) would be revised by removing the reference 
to ``ESA,'' meaning the ``Endangered Species Act,'' and adding more 
specific language about expectations for management of fish stocks 
caught together (i.e., no core stocks should fall below their 
Blim more than 50 percent of the time in the long-term, even 
though overfishing of the stock occurs sometimes in a fishery 
consisting of more than one stock).
    In Sec.  600.310, the newly redesignated paragraph (f)(4)(i) would 
be revised to require that overfishing be prevented beginning in the 
first year of any new or revised rebuilding plans and thereafter, 
except under c