[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 50, Volume 4]
[Revised as of October 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 50CFR600.340]

[Page 41-42]
 
                    TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
 
PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS--Table of Contents
 
                      Subpart D--National Standards
 
Sec. 600.340  National Standard 7--Costs and Benefits.

    (a) Standard 7. Conservation and management measures shall, where 
practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.
    (b) Necessity of Federal management--(1) General. The principle that 
not every fishery needs regulation is implicit in this standard. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Councils to prepare FMPs only for 
overfished fisheries and for other fisheries where regulation would 
serve some useful purpose and where the present or future benefits of 
regulation would justify the costs. For example, the need to collect 
data about a fishery is not, by itself, adequate justification for 
preparation of an FMP, since there are less costly ways to gather the 
data (see Sec. 600.320(d)(2). In some cases, the FMP preparation process 
itself, even if it does not culminate in a document approved by the 
Secretary, can be useful in supplying a basis for management by one or 
more coastal states.
    (2) Criteria. In deciding whether a fishery needs management through 
regulations implementing an FMP, the following general factors should be 
considered, among others:

[[Page 42]]

    (i) The importance of the fishery to the Nation and to the regional 
economy.
    (ii) The condition of the stock or stocks of fish and whether an FMP 
can improve or maintain that condition.
    (iii) The extent to which the fishery could be or is already 
adequately managed by states, by state/Federal programs, by Federal 
regulations pursuant to FMPs or international commissions, or by 
industry self-regulation, consistent with the policies and standards of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    (iv) The need to resolve competing interests and conflicts among 
user groups and whether an FMP can further that resolution.
    (v) The economic condition of a fishery and whether an FMP can 
produce more efficient utilization.
    (vi) The needs of a developing fishery, and whether an FMP can 
foster orderly growth.
    (vii) The costs associated with an FMP, balanced against the 
benefits (see paragraph (d) of this section as a guide).
    (c) Alternative management measures. Management measures should not 
impose unnecessary burdens on the economy, on individuals, on private or 
public organizations, or on Federal, state, or local governments. 
Factors such as fuel costs, enforcement costs, or the burdens of 
collecting data may well suggest a preferred alternative.
    (d) Analysis. The supporting analyses for FMPs should demonstrate 
that the benefits of fishery regulation are real and substantial 
relative to the added research, administrative, and enforcement costs, 
as well as costs to the industry of compliance. In determining the 
benefits and costs of management measures, each management strategy 
considered and its impacts on different user groups in the fishery 
should be evaluated. This requirement need not produce an elaborate, 
formalistic cost/benefit analysis. Rather, an evaluation of effects and 
costs, especially of differences among workable alternatives, including 
the status quo, is adequate. If quantitative estimates are not possible, 
qualitative estimates will suffice.
    (1) Burdens. Management measures should be designed to give 
fishermen the greatest possible freedom of action in conducting business 
and pursuing recreational opportunities that are consistent with 
ensuring wise use of the resources and reducing conflict in the fishery. 
The type and level of burden placed on user groups by the regulations 
need to be identified. Such an examination should include, for example: 
Capital outlays; operating and maintenance costs; reporting costs; 
administrative, enforcement, and information costs; and prices to 
consumers. Management measures may shift costs from one level of 
government to another, from one part of the private sector to another, 
or from the government to the private sector. Redistribution of costs 
through regulations is likely to generate controversy. A discussion of 
these and any other burdens placed on the public through FMP regulations 
should be a part of the FMP's supporting analyses.
    (2) Gains. The relative distribution of gains may change as a result 
of instituting different sets of alternatives, as may the specific type 
of gain. The analysis of benefits should focus on the specific gains 
produced by each alternative set of management measures, including the 
status quo. The benefits to society that result from the alternative 
management measures should be identified, and the level of gain 
assessed.

[61 FR 32540, June 24, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 7075, Feb. 12, 1998; 63 
FR 24234, May 1, 1998]