50 CFR § 600.345 National Standard 8

§ 600.345

50 CFR Ch. VI (10–1–23 Edition)
be identified, and the level of gain assessed.

burdens of collecting data may well
suggest a preferred alternative.
(c) Analysis. The supporting analyses
for FMPs should demonstrate that the
benefits of fishery regulation are real
and substantial relative to the added
research, administrative, and enforcement costs, as well as costs to the industry of compliance. In determining
the benefits and costs of management
measures, each management strategy
considered and its impacts on different
user groups in the fishery should be
evaluated. This requirement need not
produce an elaborate, formalistic cost/
benefit analysis. Rather, an evaluation
of effects and costs, especially of differences among workable alternatives,
including the status quo, is adequate.
If quantitative estimates are not possible, qualitative estimates will suffice.
(1) Burdens. Management measures
should be designed to give fishermen
the greatest possible freedom of action
in conducting business and pursuing
recreational opportunities that are
consistent with ensuring wise use of
the resources and reducing conflict in
the fishery. The type and level of burden placed on user groups by the regulations need to be identified. Such an
examination should include, for example: Capital outlays; operating and
maintenance costs; reporting costs; administrative, enforcement, and information costs; and prices to consumers.
Management measures may shift costs
from one level of government to another, from one part of the private sector to another, or from the government
to the private sector. Redistribution of
costs through regulations is likely to
generate controversy. A discussion of
these and any other burdens placed on
the public through FMP regulations
should be a part of the FMP’s supporting analyses.
(2) Gains. The relative distribution of
gains may change as a result of instituting different sets of alternatives, as
may the specific type of gain. The analysis of benefits should focus on the specific gains produced by each alternative set of management measures,
including the status quo. The benefits
to society that result from the alternative management measures should

[81 FR 71904, Oct. 18, 2016]

§ 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 by utilizing economic and
social data that are based upon the
best scientific information available 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 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

66

Fishery Conservation and Management
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 fisheriesdependent 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 must 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

§ 600.350
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.
[63 FR 24234, May 1, 1998, as amended at 73
FR 67810, Nov. 17, 2008]

§ 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 two ways, impede
efforts to protect marine ecosystems
and achieve sustainable fisheries and
the full benefits they can provide to
the Nation. First, bycatch 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.
Second, bycatch may also preclude

67