[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51853-51857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21058]
[[Page 51853]]
Vol. 77
Monday,
No. 166
August 27, 2012
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid,
and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 6 and Specifications and
Management Measures; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 51854]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 120307159-2329-01]
RIN 0648-BB99
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 6
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is modifying the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council's risk policy regarding stocks without an overfishing limit.
Framework Adjustment 6 was initiated by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council in order to clarify its tolerance for risk for such
stocks. The modification will allow increases of the acceptable
biological catch for stocks that have stable or increasing trends in
abundance, and for which there is robust scientific information to
suggest that an increased acceptable biological catch will not lead to
overfishing.
DATES: Effective on August 24, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Supplemental
Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR),
for Framework Adjustment 6, and the Omnibus Annual Catch Limits and
Accountability Measure Amendment EA/RIR, are available from: John K.
Bullard, Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. These documents
are also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978-281-9195, fax 978-281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS published a proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 6 on June
28, 2012 (77 FR 38566). Additional background information and detail on
why and how Framework Adjustment 6 was developed are included in the
proposed rule, and are not repeated here. The Council established
acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules (implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 648.20) and a risk policy (Sec. 648.21) to guide
the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in its ABC
setting process for all Council fishery management plans (FMPs) in the
recently implemented Omnibus Amendment for Annual Catch Limits and
Accountability Measures (October 31, 2011; 76 FR 60606). The Council's
original risk policy did not permit increases to the ABC for stocks
that lack an overfishing limit (OFL) derived either from the stock
assessment, or through the SSC ABC recommendation process. Framework
Adjustment 6 modifies the risk policy regarding stocks without an OFL
or OFL proxy to allow the SSC to recommend increases to the ABC for
stocks that have stable or increasing trends in abundance, and for
which the SSC can point to robust scientific information to suggest
that an increased ABC will not lead to overfishing. The adjustment to
this policy does not change the Council's approach to stocks without an
OFL that have declining biomass, or for which the SSC cannot point to
scientific evidence to suggest that the recommended ABC will not result
in overfishing.
Though this action only modifies the MSB FMP, the adjusted risk
policy applies to all of the Council's managed species, including
Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, summer
flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, and
tilefish. The regulations for the ABC control rules and risk policy
reside in the MSB FMP, but are a product of the Omnibus Amendment,
which affected all of the FMPs for the above-listed species. The
provisions in the Omnibus Amendment, including the risk policy, do not
apply to longfin squid or Illex squid; these species are exempt from
these requirements because they have a life cycle of less than 1 year.
It is only necessary to complete this action as a framework adjustment
to the MSB FMP because the ABC control rules and risk policy are
incorporated by reference into the regulations for all other Council
species.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received a total of four comments on the proposed rule for
Framework Adjustment 6 from: Lund's Fisheries, Inc., a processing
facility in Cape May, NJ; the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA),
a New Jersey-based commercial fishing industry group; the Herring
Alliance, which represents 52 organizations concerned about the status
of the Atlantic Coast's forage fish; and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC).
Comment 1: Lund's Fisheries, Inc., and GSSA supported Framework
Adjustment 6. They noted that this action will clearly define the
Council's risk policy and retain the integrity of the SSC scientific
review process, while providing the SSC with the needed flexibility to
set ABCs in data-poor situations. GSSA noted that the SSC should be
allowed to analyze and use all available scientific data when
recommending ABC, and should not be constrained because no OFL can be
derived. Lund's Fisheries, Inc., and GSSA supported the requirement
that the SSC must justify its decision by providing a description of
why the increase is warranted, how it arrived at the increase, and
certify why overfishing will not occur. Lund's Fisheries, Inc.,
asserted that, under these strict requirements, any fear that the SSC
would greatly inflate the ABC without scientific justification is
unwarranted.
Response: NMFS agrees that it is the Council's prerogative to
define its risk policy to communicate its tolerance for risk in ABC
recommendations to the SSC, provided that its risk policy complies with
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council's revisions to the risk policy do
comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act because the SSC is still confined
to specific criteria in setting an ABC that does not pose the risk of
overfishing for a given stock. Further, the Council and NMFS will
review SSC ABC recommendations to ensure that the revised risk policy
is applied appropriately.
Comment 2: The Herring Alliance and NRDC urged NMFS to disapprove
Framework Adjustment 6. They noted that the Council is proposing a
significant modification to its risk policy that would sanction a more
risk-prone approach to managing stocks lacking an OFL. Further, the
Herring Alliance argued that the proposed changes to the risk policy
would nullify the policy for Level 4 stocks (those stocks with the
lowest certainty in scientific information), leaving those species
vulnerable to overfishing, which is incongruous with the objectives of
the Omnibus Amendment, the National Standard 1 guidelines, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: The adjustment would only allow increases for Level 4
stocks that have had stable or increasing trends in abundance, and
stocks for which the SSC could certify that its ABC recommendation is
not likely to result in overfishing. NMFS disagrees that the adjustment
to this policy would nullify the risk policy for all Level 4 stock.
Framework Adjustment 6 does not
[[Page 51855]]
change the Council's approach to stocks without an OFL/OFL proxy that
have evidence of biomass declines or for which the SSC cannot point to
scientific evidence to suggest that the recommended ABC will not result
in overfishing.
Neither the Magnuson-Stevens Act nor the National Standard 1
guidelines have language prohibiting increases in ABC in the absence of
an OFL. The National Standard 1 guidelines do advise that, when
possible, the determination of an ABC should be based on the
probability that an actual catch equal to the stock's ABC would result
in overfishing (see Sec. 600.310(f)(4)), but make no mention of how a
Council should proceed when it is not possible to establish an OFL or
OFL proxy. Each Council may determine the acceptable level of risk of
overfishing (which overall must be below 50 percent, according to
Magnuson-Stevens Act; Sec. 600.310(f)(4)). In this case, the Council
is further defining its risk tolerance for certain stocks without an
OFL or OFL proxy.
Comment 3: Lund's Fisheries, Inc., commented that the application
of this policy as it pertains to the final 2012 butterfish
specifications is urgent. It urged NMFS to immediately publish a final
rule implementing Framework 6 and waive the delay in effectiveness so
that the final 2012 butterfish specifications can be published prior to
the start of the Trimester III longfin squid fishery. It argued that a
delay in publication would result in negative economic impacts to the
squid fishery, and that a waiver would not pose any threat to
overfishing the butterfish resource.
Response: NMFS agrees that the approval of Framework 6 has
immediate implications for the longfin squid fishery, but clarifies
that, regardless of the immediate implications of this action, the
revisions to the risk policy will apply to all Council-managed species
that may lack an OFL in the future. NMFS published a proposed rule
(October 26, 2011; 76 FR 66260) with the Council's original 2012
butterfish ABC recommendation (3,622 mt) because, in the absence of the
risk policy, the SSC's advice to increase the butterfish ABC (from
1,811 mt in 2011) was otherwise well justified (see response to Comment
6). A comment on the proposed rule pointed out that increases to the
butterfish ABC were prohibited by the Council's risk policy, and we
addressed this inconsistency by publishing the status quo specification
in an interim final rule (March 21, 2012; 77 FR 16472). In response to
our interim final rule for butterfish, the Council initiated Framework
6 to revise its risk policy for all Council-managed species. The timing
of Framework 6 coincides with the start of Trimester III for longfin
squid (September 1-December 31), which, under the existing butterfish
specifications, would not open because the total annual butterfish
mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery (1,436 mt) has been
attained. Framework 6 provides the authority to implement the Council's
original 2012 recommendation for butterfish specifications in a final
rule, which could allow the Trimester III longfin squid fishery to open
on schedule by increasing the butterfish mortality cap (to 2,445 mt).
Comment 4: The Herring Alliance argued that Framework 6 was
developed solely as a result of the first application of the risk
policy to the 2012 butterfish specifications. It asserted that NMFS
should not approve a rushed Council decision solely on a single ABC
specification experience. It commented that, rather than bypassing its
own policy, the Council should work to develop OFLs for all Level 4
stocks in order to set ABCs that comply with the current risk policy,
as the SSC did for butterfish for the 2013 fishing year. It noted that,
in order for the SSC to certify that an ABC will not lead to
overfishing, it will need to perform an analysis of all relevant
scientific information about the status of the stock to determine
whether quota increases will lead to overfishing. It argues that this
level of analysis is equivalent to the development of an OFL proxy.
Response: NMFS reiterates that the adjustment to the risk policy in
Framework 6 applies to all of the Council's managed species. While the
process to initiate the change was started in response to the 2012
specifications experience with butterfish, the Council worked to devise
a revision to the risk policy that would allow the SSC to use all
available information when making ABC recommendations for any situation
where a Council-managed species does not have an OFL available from the
assessment.
The SSC has noted its preference to have an OFL estimate that is
based on the assessment, which takes into account all information about
population dynamics that is available at the time (see Framework
Adjustment 6 discussion at April 2012 Council meeting). It noted that,
rather than deriving an OFL proxy when an OFL is unavailable from the
assessment, its preference is to simply set an ABC that it believes
would not lead to overfishing based on all other available evidence.
NMFS agrees that this approach is valid, provided that sufficient
scientific evidence is presented in the SSC's deliberations to suggest
that its recommendation will not result in overfishing of the stock in
question. As further support for this approach, the National Standard 1
guidelines at Sec. 600.310(f)(3) note that while NMFS expects that in
most cases a recommended ABC should be reduced from the OFL to reduce
the probability of overfishing, the ABC may be set equal to the OFL.
Again, NMFS expect the SSC and the Council to present very strong
justification for such cases (Sec. 600.310(f)(5)).
Comment 5: The NRDC asserted that ad hoc approaches to developing
ABC recommendations that have not been vetted by independent experts
lack transparency and rigorous independent evaluation, and thus do not
represent the best available scientific information. The NRDC asserted
that is especially the case given that more rigorous methods for
estimating reference points for data-poor stocks are available. It
noted that the SSC's ABC recommendations for the 2012 and 2013
specifications are prime examples of the dangers of ad hoc decision
making. The NRDC commented that the Council and NMFS should adopt a
policy with specific criteria and characteristics for which methods are
acceptable for determining OFLs or OFL proxies for data-limited stocks.
Response: The SSC is expected to conduct its ABC recommendation
process in an open, transparent public forum and to provide detailed
documentation for the Council and public that provides the information
considered, the approaches taken, and why the recommended ABC is
consistent with the best available scientific information. Thus,
provided that the SSC can demonstrate that the method that it uses for
a given stock is defensible and will not result in overfishing for the
stock in question, NMFS does not believe that it is necessary to define
a list of criteria or characteristics of methods that are acceptable
for determining OFLs or OFL proxies for data-limited stocks.
Comment 6: The NRDC criticized the SSC's recommended butterfish
ABCs for both the 2012 and 2013 fishing years. It noted that the SSC
doubled the 2012 ABC based on a NOAA Technical Memorandum used to set
ABCs for stocks that only have reliable catch information, but did not
apply the recommended methodology in the memorandum properly, and the
SSC's subsequent reaffirmation of their 2012 ABC recommendation under
the provisions in Framework 6. It also
[[Page 51856]]
criticized the SSC's butterfish ABC recommendation for the 2013 fishing
year. Further, it noted that the change in the risk policy being
proposed in Framework Adjustment 6 would encourage more of this type of
rushed decision making, which will in turn increase the risk of
overfishing for the stocks with the greatest uncertainty regarding
stock status and productivity.
In contrast, Lund's Fisheries, Inc., and GSSA supported the
Council's 2012 butterfish recommendations. They noted that any
increases in butterfish catch would be expected to be very small
relative to the actual increase in butterfish abundance. They also
asserted that the chances of overfishing the butterfish resource under
the modest quota increases initially proposed by the Council and NMFS
in the proposed rule for 2012 butterfish specifications are, by SSC
estimates, extremely low.
Response: NMFS does not believe that Framework 6 will lead to
rushed decision making. Again, the SSC is still confined to a specific
set of criteria in setting an ABC that does not pose the risk of
overfishing for a given stock. The final implementation of
specifications for Council-managed species is the culmination of a
lengthy process that involves input from the SSC, the Council, the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and NMFS policy staff. The Council
may recommend a more conservative ABC than that recommended by the SSC
if it feels that the SSC's recommendation does not adequately safeguard
against overfishing. Further, NMFS can implement alternative
specifications, should our review determine that the Council's
recommendation is out of compliance with National Standard 1.
NMFS notes that the merits of the SSC's ABC recommendations for the
2012 and 2013 fishing years are not the subject of this rulemaking, but
offers some discussion of these issues because of their relevance to
Framework 6. With regard to the SSC's 2012 ABC recommendation, the NRDC
references NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616 (Calculating
Acceptable Biological Catch for Stocks that have Reliable Catch Data
Only (Only Reliable Catch Stocks--ORCS; 2011)). The memorandum was
developed by a Working Group comprised of representatives from seven of
the eight SSCs, five of the six NMFS Science Centers, NMFS
Headquarters, academic institutions, a state agency, and a non-
governmental organization to offer guidance that can be used to set
ABCs for stocks that only have reliable catch data, are lightly fished,
and appear to have stable or increasing trends. The SSC noted that the
butterfish stock met the criteria outlined for this approach, and
relied on the concepts in this guidance document in developing its ABC
recommendation. The report recommends doubling catch during a stable
period to create an OFL, setting the ABC at 50 to 90 percent of the
OFL, and then tracking the stock to see how the adjusted catch levels
affect abundance. During its public process, the SSC discussed that,
given that butterfish fishing mortality was likely contributing very
little to changes in stock abundance, the ABC could be doubled and
still yield a fishing mortality rate that would not affect stock size.
The SSC also commented during Council deliberations that establishing
an OFL or OFL proxy would not have changed its ABC recommendation for
2012. NMFS considered the SSC's rationale for increasing the butterfish
ABC and found it to be appropriate and well supported by the best
available scientific information. The SSC was guided by NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-616, and used its scientific judgment to
recommend an ABC that was expected to result in a level of fishing
mortality documented in SAW 49, and, as noted by the SSC, was not
expected to result in overfishing of the butterfish resource.
NMFS notes that, since the initiation of Framework Adjustment 6,
the SSC reaffirmed its original 2012 butterfish ABC recommendation of
3,622 mt (originally recommended in May 2011) at their May 2012 meeting
in accordance with the provisions in Framework Adjustment 6, and the
Council reaffirmed their original suite of recommended specifications
(originally recommended in June 2011) at its June 2012 meeting. As
noted in the response to Comment 3, NMFS will publish a rule to
finalize butterfish specifications shortly.
Comments on the Council's 2013 specifications recommendations will
be addressed in the 2013 specifications process. The SSC recommended a
2013 butterfish ABC to the Council at its May 2012 meeting, and the
Council adopted the SSC's recommendation, along with butterfish
specifications and management measures, at its June 2012 meeting. The
Council is finalizing its recommendation, which will be submitted to
NMFS for review and rulemaking. NMFS clarifies that the SSC did not
rely on the provisions in Framework Adjustment 6 for its 2013
butterfish ABC recommendation because it was able to develop an OFL
proxy during its deliberations.
Comment 7: The Herring Alliance argued that such a regressive
change to the risk policy requires full consideration through an FMP
amendment, rather than through a framework adjustment. It noted that
the Omnibus Amendment clearly specifies that any significant changes
are not appropriate under the limited public process of a framework
adjustment. The Herring Alliance acknowledged that the Omnibus
Amendment does allow for changes to a limited list of its provisions
through the framework adjustment process, but claims that changes to
the risk policy are not included in that list for any of the Council-
managed species. The Herring Alliance argued that the adjustment to the
risk policy proposed in Framework Adjustment 6 is an entirely new
concept that was not previously contemplated by the Council, and that
the proposed deviation to the risk policy is different from the
provisions already in place for the Council to deviate from the ABC
control rules. It claimed that, since the proposed changes to risk
policy are a complete reversal of the Council's original guidance for
Level 4 stocks, it cannot be characterized as a minor adjustment.
Response: This action does not introduce a new concept, and is not
a significant departure from the Council's existing risk policy, but
rather a clarification of the Council's intent regarding stocks with
increasing trends for which an OFL cannot be established. Similar
discussion regarding departure from the Council's established ABC
control rules is included in the NS1 Guidelines (Sec. 600.310(f)(3))
and in the ABC control rule regulations at Sec. 648.20. The Council
felt that the flexibility provided to the SSC in the ABC control rules
was in conflict with the lack of flexibility in its existing risk
policy. Because the risk policy and ABC control rules are meant to work
in concert, the Council initiated Framework Adjustment 6 to perfect and
clarify its guidance to the SSC.
Framework Adjustment 6 does not change the Council's approach for
all Level 4 stocks, and only allows the SSC to recommend ABC increases
for Level 4 stocks under very limited circumstances. Stocks without an
OFL or OFL proxy that have evidence of biomass declines or for which
the SSC cannot point to scientific evidence to suggest that the
recommended ABC will not result in overfishing will still be bound by
the original risk policy.
Adjustments to the existing Council risk policy can be addressed
through the framework process for all Council-managed species (see
Sec. 648.25(a)(1) for
[[Page 51857]]
mackerel and butterfish; Sec. 648.79(a)(1) for surfclam and ocean
quahog; Sec. 648.110(a)(1) for summer flounder; Sec. 648.130(a)(1)
for scup; Sec. 648.149(a)(1) for black sea bass; Sec. 648.167(a)(1)
for bluefish; Sec. 648.239(a)(1) for spiny dogfish; and Sec.
648.299(a)(1)(x) for tilefish). Given that the adjustment will only
apply in limited circumstances, and given that no other provisions of
the Omnibus Amendment are altered by this action, this change is minor
enough to have been addressed in a framework adjustment rather than
through a plan amendment. The analytical requirements to complete this
action as a framework adjustment or an amendment are the same, and the
Council prepared the necessary analytical requirements for this action
in the form of a Supplemental Environmental Assessment. The primary
difference is the amount of time that it takes to complete an amendment
as compared to a framework adjustment. The Council process for this
framework adjustment was completed over two Council meetings (February
2012 and April 2012). In contrast, an amendment would take several
additional months for completion. The public was provided the required
notice for Council meetings for this framework adjustment, and the
meetings were open to public participation and offered the public
sufficient opportunity to comment on the measures being considered.
Finally, this framework adjustment underwent the proposed and final
rulemaking processes to allow the public additional opportunity to
comment.
Classification
The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that this
framework adjustment to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish;
Atlantic Bluefish; Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass; Surfclam and Ocean Quahog; and Tilefish FMPs is necessary for the
conservation and management of the Atlantic mackerel, butterfish,
Atlantic bluefish, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea
bass, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish fisheries and that it is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause
under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act to waive the
30-day delay in effectiveness for this action because delaying the
effectiveness of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.
Immediate implementation of Framework Adjustment 6 will allow for the
increase in the butterfish mortality cap on the longfin squid fishery
to 2,445 mt (a 1,009-mt increase from status quo) through the
implementation of the final 2012 butterfish specifications. The Council
initiated process for Framework Adjustment 6 at its February 2012
meeting, which was the first Council meeting after it realized that its
risk policy may need further clarification with respect to stocks
without an overfishing limit. The timeline that this action has
followed has been the fastest possible given statutory requirements,
and happens to coincide with the start of Trimester III for longfin
squid. By the time the longfin squid fishery closed on July 10, 2012,
in Trimester II, over 100 percent of the status quo annual allocation
of the butterfish mortality cap was estimated to have been taken.
Because the butterfish mortality cap closes the longfin squid fishery
in Trimester III when 90 percent of the annual butterfish cap
allocation has been taken, under the status quo allocation, the longfin
squid fishery would not be opened at the start of Trimester III on
September 1, 2012. The increased butterfish mortality cap implemented
through the final 2012 butterfish specifications will allow for the
longfin squid fishery to operate during Trimester III. Longfin squid
migrate throughout their range and have sporadic availability. The
fleet is quick to target longfin squid aggregations when they do
appear, and is capable of landing over 550 mt in a single week.
Analysis of this year's fishing activity indicates that longfin squid
was particularly abundant this spring and summer, and historical
availability patterns suggest that longfin squid abundance could still
be high in the early fall. Only 7,761 mt of the 22,220 mt longfin squid
quota has been harvested this year, meaning that well over half of the
quota remains to be harvested during the final 4 months of the fishing
year. A 30-day delay in the implementation of this rulemaking, and thus
a delay in the implementation of the final 2012 butterfish
specifications, may prevent fishermen from accessing longfin squid when
it is temporarily available within portions of its range and prevent
the harvest of a significant amount of longfin squid quota (up to 2,220
mt of the remaining 14,459 mt of longfin squid quota), negating any
benefit of implementing this rule.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for this certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received
regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility
analysis was not required and none was prepared.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Dated: August 21, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Performing the Functions and
Duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended
as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 648.21, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.21 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council risk policy.
* * * * *
(d) Stock without an OFL or OFL proxy. (1) If an OFL cannot be
determined from the stock assessment, or if a proxy is not provided by
the SSC during the ABC recommendation process, ABC levels may not be
increased until such time that an OFL has been identified.
(2) The SSC may deviate from paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
provided that the following two criteria are met: Biomass-based
reference points indicate that the stock is greater than
BMSY and stock biomass is stable or increasing, or if
biomass based reference points are not available, best available
science indicates that stock biomass is stable or increasing; and the
SSC provides a determination that, based on best available science, the
recommended increase to the ABC is not expected to result in
overfishing. Any such deviation must include a description of why the
increase is warranted, description of the methods used to derive the
alternative ABC, and a certification that the ABC is not likely to
result in overfishing on the stock.
[FR Doc. 2012-21058 Filed 8-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P