[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35590-35602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15822]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 180212159-8159-01]
RIN 0648-BH75


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Shortfin Mako Shark Management 
Measures; Proposed Amendment 11

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to amend the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic 
Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) based on 
the results of the 2017 stock assessment and a subsequent binding 
recommendation by the International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. The 
North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock is overfished and is 
experiencing overfishing. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic 
Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), NMFS is proposing management measures that 
would reduce fishing mortality on shortfin mako sharks and establish a 
foundation for rebuilding the shortfin mako shark population consistent 
with legal requirements. The proposed measures could affect U.S. 
commercial and recreational fishermen who target and harvest shortfin 
mako sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and 
Caribbean Sea by increasing live releases and reducing landings.

DATES: Written comments must be received by October 1, 2018. NMFS will 
hold six public hearings and an operator-assisted public hearing via 
conference call and webinar on this proposed rule for Draft Amendment 
11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 11) in August and 
September 2018. For specific dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2018-0011, by any one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0011, click the 
``Comment Now'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach 
your comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Submit written comments to Gu[yacute] DuBeck, NMFS/
SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, National Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC3, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Instructions: Please include the identifier NOAA-NMFS-2018-0011 
when submitting comments. Comments sent by any other method, to any 
other address or individual, or received after the close of the comment 
period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part 
of the public record and generally will be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). 
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    NMFS will hold six public hearings and one operator-assisted public 
hearing via conference call and webinar on this proposed rule and Draft 
Amendment 11. NMFS will hold public hearings in Corpus Christi, TX; 
Linwood, NJ; Manteo, NC; Morehead City, NC; Gloucester, MA; and St. 
Petersburg, FL. For specific locations, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Copies of the supporting documents--including the draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and amendments are available from the HMS 
website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-speciesor by contacting Gu[yacute] DuBeck at (301) 427-8503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gu[yacute] DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-
Geisz at (301) 427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The North Atlantic shortfin mako stock is managed primarily under 
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and also under ATCA. The 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations 
at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of this proposed 
rule is provided below. Additional information regarding Atlantic shark 
management can be found in the DEIS accompanying this proposed rule for 
Amendment 11, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the 
annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and 
online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.

North Atlantic Shortfin Mako Shark Stock Status and Emergency Interim 
Final Rule

    The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) is a 
highly migratory species that ranges across the entire North Atlantic 
Ocean and is caught by numerous countries. The stock is predominantly 
caught offshore in association with fisheries that primarily target 
tunas and tuna-like species. While these sharks are a valued component 
of U.S. recreational and commercial fisheries, U.S. catch represents 
only approximately 11 percent of the species' total catch in the North 
Atlantic by all reporting countries. International measures are, 
therefore, critical to the species' effective conservation and 
management.
    In August 2017, ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and 
Statistics (SCRS) conducted a new benchmark stock assessment on the 
North Atlantic shortfin mako stock. At its November 2017 annual 
meeting, ICCAT accepted this stock assessment and determined the stock 
to be overfished, with overfishing occurring. On December 13, 2017, 
based on this assessment, NMFS issued a status determination finding 
the stock to be overfished and experiencing overfishing applying 
domestic criteria. The assessment specifically indicated that biomass 
(B<INF>2015</INF>) is substantially less than the biomass at maximum 
sustainable yield (B<INF>MSY</INF>) for eight of the nine models used 
for the assessment (B<INF>2015</INF>/B<INF>MSY</INF> = 0.57-0.85). In 
the ninth model, spawning stock fecundity (SSF) was less than 
SSF<INF>MSY</INF> (SSF<INF>2015</INF>/SSF<INF>MSY</INF> = 0.95). 
Additionally, the assessment indicated that fishing mortality 
(F<INF>2015</INF>) was greater than F<INF>MSY</INF> (1.93-4.38), with a 
combined 90 percent probability from all models

[[Page 35591]]

that the population is overfished, with overfishing occurring. This was 
a change from the 2012 stock assessment that indicated that both the 
North and South Atlantic stocks of shortfin mako sharks were healthy 
and the probability of overfishing was low. However, the high 
uncertainty in past catch estimates and deficiency of some important 
biological parameters, particularly for the Southern stock, were still 
obstacles for obtaining reliable estimates of current status of the 
stocks.
    The 2017 assessment estimated that total North Atlantic shortfin 
mako catches across all ICCAT parties are currently between 3,600 and 
4,750 metric ton (mt) per year. The assessment further indicated that 
such total catches would have to be at or below 1,000 mt (72-79 percent 
reductions) to prevent further population declines, and total catches 
of 500 mt or less would be expected to stop overfishing and begin 
rebuilding the stock. The stock assessment projections indicated that a 
total allowable catch of 0 mt would produce a greater than 50 percent 
probability of rebuilding the stock by the year 2040, which is 
approximately equal to one mean generation time. The stock assessment 
report stated that while research indicates that post-release survival 
rates of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks are high (70 percent), the 
assessment could not determine if requiring live releases alone would 
reduce landings sufficiently to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. 
The stock assessment did not evaluate rebuilding times greater than one 
mean generation time, although shark stocks generally take longer than 
one mean generation time to rebuild given their slow reproductive 
biology and other factors.
    Based on this information and given that the stock is primarily 
caught in association with ICCAT fisheries, ICCAT at its November 2017 
meeting adopted new management measures for Atlantic shortfin mako in 
Recommendation 17-08. The measures largely focus on maximizing live 
releases of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, allowing retention only in 
certain limited circumstances, increasing minimum size limits for 
retention, and improving data collection in ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT 
stated that the measures in the Recommendation ``are expected to 
prevent the population from decreasing further, stop overfishing and 
begin to rebuild the stock'' and provided for a six-month review. The 
Recommendation requires ICCAT parties that authorize retention to 
provide to ICCAT ``the amount of North Atlantic shortfin mako caught 
and retained on board as well as dead discards during the first six 
months in 2018 by one month prior to the 2018 Commission annual 
meeting.'' The Recommendation specifies that at its annual meeting in 
November 2018, ICCAT will review the catches from the first six months 
of 2018 and decide whether these measures should be modified. In 2019, 
the SCRS will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in ending 
overfishing and beginning to rebuild the stock. The SCRS will also 
provide rebuilding information that reflects rebuilding timeframes of 
at least two mean generation times, taking into consideration the slow 
reproductive biology of sharks and other factors. The Recommendation 
provides that in 2019, ICCAT will establish a rebuilding plan that will 
have a high probability of avoiding overfishing and rebuilding the 
stock to B<INF>MSY</INF> within a timeframe that takes into account the 
biology of the stock.
    On March 2, 2018, NMFS implemented an interim final rule using 
emergency authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(c), 
to quickly implement measures in the HMS recreational and commercial 
fisheries consistent with Recommendation 17-08. NMFS solicited public 
comment on that rule through May 7, 2018. See id. (allowing extension 
of rule for not more than 186 days if public has opportunity for 
comment). The purpose of the emergency interim final rule was to 
address overfishing and to ensure that the U.S. can provide meaningful 
information reflective of the new measures to ICCAT for the six-month 
reporting requirement in the Recommendation (83 FR 8946). Management 
measures adopted through the interim final rule, and which remain in 
effect, are as follows:

    <bullet> Commercial fishermen on vessels deploying pelagic 
longline gear, which are required to have a functional electronic 
monitoring system on board under current regulations, must release 
all live shortfin mako sharks with a minimum of harm, while giving 
due consideration to the safety of crew members. Commercial 
fishermen using pelagic longline gear can only retain a shortfin 
mako shark if it is dead at haulback;
    <bullet> Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic 
longline commercial gear (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear, 
etc.) must release all shortfin mako sharks, whether they are dead 
or alive; and
    <bullet> Recreational fishermen (fishermen with HMS Angling or 
Charter/Headboat permits and fishermen with Atlantic Tunas General 
category and Swordfish General Commercial permits when participating 
in a registered HMS tournament) must release any shortfin mako 
sharks smaller than the newly-implemented minimum size of 83 inches 
(210 centimeters (cm)) fork length (FL). This minimum size was an 
increase from the previous minimum size of 54 inches FL. This 
measure was different than the separate minimum size limits for 
males (180 cm FL) and females (210 cm FL) recommended in ICCAT 
Recommendation 17-08. The ICCAT stock assessment upon which the 
Recommendation was based had recommended an overall reduction in 
shortfin mako shark landings (or is it mortality?) for ICCAT 
parties. Consistent with this, in developing this proposed rule, 
NMFS analyzed minimum sizes in the context of U.S. fisheries and 
believes that a single minimum size limit of 83 inches (210 cm) FL 
is needed to address the U.S. portion of recommended mortality 
reduction (see ADDRESSES for how to get a copy of the DEIS). 
Furthermore, confirming the sex of a large and potentially active 
shortfin mako shark prior to its landing could be challenging for 
fishermen and may have safety implications. A single minimum size 
limit for the species is also simpler to implement and enforce.

    The emergency measures are initially effective for 180 days (ending 
on August 29, 2018), and may be extended to March 3, 2019. Once 
finalized, this rule is intended to replace these emergency measures 
with long-term measures. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for 
Amendment 11 of the Consolidated HMS FMP was published in the Federal 
Register on March 5, 2018 (83 FR 9255).

Proposed Measures

    The objectives of Draft Amendment 11 and this proposed rule are to 
address overfishing and establish a foundation for rebuilding the North 
Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock, which ICCAT will adopt in 2019 
after obtaining additional scientific information, as set out in 
Recommendation 17-08. In a DEIS, NMFS considered alternatives to meet 
the objectives of the Amendment. Given the various objectives, NMFS 
divided alternatives into the following four broad categories for 
organizational clarity and to facilitate effective review: Commercial 
fishery, recreational fishery, monitoring, and rebuilding. As 
summarized below, NMFS fully considered 29 alternatives within these 
categories and is preferring five measures, one in the commercial 
fishery, two in the recreational fishery (each regarding a different 
regulation type), one regarding monitoring, and one regarding 
rebuilding the stock, to meet the objectives of the rule and achieve at 
least a 75 percent reduction in U.S. shortfin mako shark landings 
consistent with the suggested level of reduction recommended in the 
stock assessment. The stock assessment recommends this level of 
reduction throughout the stock's range, and all

[[Page 35592]]

ICCAT parties are committed to take the specified measures to achieve 
the needed reductions. NMFS' detailed analysis of the alternatives is 
provided in the DEIS for Draft Amendment 11 (see ADDRESSES for how to 
get a copy of the DEIS) and a summary is provided in the IRFA below. In 
developing the alternatives, NMFS considered commercial retention 
restrictions and the 83 inch FL recreational minimum size limit now 
temporarily in place through the emergency interim final rule, public 
comments received on that rule, other conservation and management 
measures that have been implemented in the HMS fisheries since 2008 
that have affected shark fisheries or shark bycatch in other fisheries, 
and public comments received on the Amendment 11 Issues and Options 
paper, including comments provided at the March 2018 HMS Advisory Panel 
meeting. In response to public comment on this proposed rule and the 
DEIS, NMFS may make changes in the final rule by modifying the proposed 
measures or adopting different or additional measures that were not 
preferred in this proposed rule.
    This proposed rule also includes a minor change to the regulations 
specific to sharks to provide clarity and consistency throughout the 
regulations. Specifically, this rule proposes minor changes to Sec.  
635.30 (c)(4) to update the regulatory language to reference shark 
endorsements on permits and to clarify when non-commercial fishermen 
must retain the head, fins, and tails on a shark carcass.
Commercial Measures
    Under this proposed rule, a commercial fisherman on a vessel with a 
directed or incidental shark limited access permit (LAP) could only 
retain shortfin mako sharks if the shark is dead at haulback, the 
vessel is deploying pelagic longline gear, and there is a functional 
electronic monitoring system on board the vessel (Alternative A2). This 
proposed measure is the same commercial measure instituted under the 
emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). Pelagic 
longline vessels would be required to promptly release in a manner that 
causes the least harm any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time 
of haulback. Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic 
longline commercial gear (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear, 
etc.) would be required to release or discard all shortfin mako sharks, 
whether they are alive or dead at haulback.
    Pelagic longline fishermen rarely target shortfin mako sharks. 
Instead, fishermen usually catch shortfin mako sharks incidentally 
while fishing for valuable target species such as tunas and swordfish. 
Based on observer data, over 70 percent of the shortfin mako sharks 
interacted with in the pelagic longline fishery were alive at the 
vessel. Commercial fishermen using other gear types rarely, if ever, 
catch shortfin mako sharks. Since 2012, only four shortfin mako shark 
were observed in the bottom longline shark fishery and none were 
observed in the gillnet shark fishery. Combining live releases in the 
pelagic longline fishery and prohibiting the minimal landings from 
other commercial gears, NMFS expects this alternative to result in 
reductions in U.S. commercial landings of shortfin mako sharks by 
approximately 75 percent. Therefore, implementing this measure is 
anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial 
ecological impacts.
    In addition to this preferred commercial alternative, NMFS also 
considered a No Action (Alternative A1) which would maintain the 
regulations before the emergency rule went into place (given that the 
emergency rule is an interim rule that will expire), along with 
alternatives that would modify the commercial retention restrictions 
(Alternative A3); use electronic monitoring and/or observers to verify 
the status of boarded sharks and compliance with the size limit 
(Alternatives A4 and A5); and prohibit commercial retention 
(Alternative A6). These alternatives are not preferred at this time. 
The No Action alternative (Alternative A1) would not implement any new 
management measures and thus would not reduce shortfin mako shark 
mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. 
The alternative that allows commercial fishermen to opt in or out of an 
electronic monitoring program (Alternative A3) for shortfin mako sharks 
would be an additional burden on the fishermen that would not have any 
measurable conservation or management benefits. The program would also 
be complicated to administer and would create two separate data streams 
from within the fleet, as some vessels and catch would be compared and 
analyzed differently due to different regulatory restrictions. The 
alternative that would use electronic monitoring and/or observers to 
verify the status of boarded sharks (live or dead) or compliance with 
any size limit (Alternatives A4 and A5) would place more restrictive 
limits on fishermen, particularly pelagic longline fishermen, than 
allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback 
under the preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested 
mortality reduction without such restrictions. The alternative 
prohibiting commercial retention (Alternative A6) could disadvantage 
U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that 
implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim. This alternative also 
would cause more negative economic impacts when compared to the 
preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested mortality 
reduction.
Recreational Measures
    NMFS is proposing two measures for the recreational fishery for 
sharks. Under the first proposed measure (Alternative B3), HMS 
recreational fishermen could only land shortfin mako sharks, male or 
female, that are at least 83 inches fork length (210 cm FL). As with 
the commercial alternative, this alternative matches the management 
measure implemented in the emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; 
March 2, 2018). According to length composition information from the 
Large Pelagics Survey, this recreational minimum size would reduce the 
number of shortfin mako sharks landed by approximately 83 percent in 
the HMS recreational fishery and would reduce the weight of landings by 
at least 68 percent. It is likely that the reductions in landings under 
this alternative would be significantly greater than what is estimated 
in this proposed rule and the DEIS, as the number of recreational trips 
targeting shortfin mako sharks would likely decrease substantially 
given the large increase in the overall size limit and the smaller 
minimum size limit (54 inches FL for other shark species). Therefore, 
implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and 
long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.
    The second proposed measure (Alternative B9) would require the use 
of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing 
recreationally for sharks in federal waters. The current regulatory 
requirement for such hooks applies to shark fishing in federal waters 
south of 41[deg]43' N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), as 
implemented in Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. As 
mentioned in in more detail in the DEIS, circle hooks are a bycatch 
mortality mitigation tool that have shown promise in a number of 
fisheries for various species including sharks. Most evidence suggests 
that circle hooks reduce shark mortality rates at-vessel and post-
release without reducing catchability of target

[[Page 35593]]

species compared to J-hooks, although the reduction in mortality rate 
varies by species, gear configuration, bait, and other factors. By 
design, circle hooks tend to hook sharks in the jaw rather than in the 
throat or gut (deep-hooking), thereby reducing injury and associated 
mortality.
    For shortfin mako sharks specifically, research shows that the use 
of circle hooks reduces gut-hooking and increases post-release 
survival. French et al. (2015) examined the effects of recreational 
fishing techniques, including hook type, on shortfin mako sharks and 
found that circle hooks were more likely to hook shortfin mako sharks 
in the jaw compared to J-hooks. In the study, circle hooks were most 
likely to hook in the jaw (83 percent of the time) while J-hooks hooked 
in the jaw only 20 percent of the time but in the throat or gut 60 
percent of the time. Jaw-hooking is correlated with increased odds of 
post release survival. Therefore, implementing this measure is 
anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial 
ecological impacts.
    In addition to the proposed measure, NMFS also considered No Action 
(Alternative B1) which would maintain the regulations before the 
emergency rule went into place, along with alternatives that would 
prohibit recreational retention of shortfin mako sharks (Alternative 
B10); modify the recreational size limit by sex and seasonal retention 
or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7); and establish a 
recreational tagging program (Alternative B8). A number of alternatives 
that were considered and/or commented on during the development of this 
action are not preferred at this time because they would complicate the 
regulations for fishermen and not meet the scientific advice for 
shortfin mako mortality reduction as well as the preferred 
alternatives. The no action alternative (Alternative B1) would not 
implement any new management measures and not reduce the shortfin mako 
shark mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the 
stock. The alternatives that would modify the recreational size limit 
by sex and seasonal retention or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, 
B6, and B7) would not meet the objectives of this action as well as the 
preferred alternatives, and they would add unnecessary complexity to 
the recreational regulations. The alternative that would establish a 
landings tag program (Alternative B8) could increase the potential 
landings of shortfin mako sharks and cause unnecessary administrative 
burden in managing such a program. The alternative that considered 
prohibiting recreational retention entirely would be unnecessarily 
restrictive, have little effect on ending overfishing, and disadvantage 
U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that 
implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim, which requires less 
restrictive measures.
Monitoring Measures
    NMFS considered alternatives that would require mandatory reporting 
on vessel monitoring systems and mandatory reporting of recreational 
catches. However, after considering these alternatives, NMFS is 
proposing the No Action alternative (Alternative C1) in relation to 
monitoring measures. This preferred alternative would make no changes 
to the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako 
sharks in HMS fisheries, likely resulting in direct, short- and long-
term, neutral ecological impacts. HMS commercial fishermen would 
continue to report shortfin mako catches through vessel logbooks along 
with dealer reporting of landings and electronic monitoring systems 
would be used to verify that the shortfin mako sharks were dead at 
haulback. HMS recreational anglers fishing from Maine to Virginia would 
continue to be required to report shortfin mako shark landings and 
releases if intercepted by the Large Pelagic Survey, and data would 
continue to be collected on shortfin mako shark catches by the Access 
Point Angler Intercept Survey, which is part of the Marine Recreational 
Information Program. Thus, no additional reporting requirements would 
be placed on HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders who 
land shortfin mako sharks on non-tournament trips. Tournament operators 
would continue to be required to report landings associated with shark 
tournaments if their tournaments are selected for reporting.
    ICCAT's SCRS recommended that member nations strengthen their 
monitoring and data collection efforts to monitor the future status of 
this stock. Consistent with the SCRS recommendation, NMFS plans to 
select shark tournaments for reporting using existing regulations and 
authorities. The regulations at 50 CFR 635.5(d) require Atlantic HMS 
tournament operators to register their tournaments with NMFS, and 
authorize NMFS to select any HMS tournaments for reporting. Currently, 
NMFS only selects billfish and swordfish tournaments for reporting; 
however in their reports, those tournaments report catches of all HMS 
including sharks. Thus some, but not all, shark catch information from 
selected billfish and swordfish tournaments are already being 
collected. The tournament registration category of ``pelagic shark'' 
(which includes shortfin mako shark) makes up 95 percent of all shark 
tournaments and because information from the remaining 5 percent of 
shark tournaments will be useful for management of non-pelagic sharks, 
NMFS intends to select all shark tournaments for reporting. Therefore, 
Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, in combination with 
selecting all shark tournaments for reporting (which does not require 
any new regulations) is anticipated to have neutral ecological impacts.
    In addition to the No Action (Alternative C1), NMFS also considered 
alternatives that would require mandatory reporting on vessel 
monitoring systems (Alternative C2) and mandatory reporting of 
recreational catches (Alternative C3). A number of alternatives that 
were considered and/or commented on during the development of this 
action are not preferred at this time because the current reporting 
requirements for all HMS commercial vessels are sufficient to meet the 
purpose and need of this action and additional potential measures would 
place undue burden on recreational fishermen and potentially create 
enforcement issues. The alternative that would implement mandatory 
reporting on the vessel monitoring systems (Alternative C2) would 
unnecessarily increase burden to HMS commercial vessels that already 
report in other ways (vessel logbooks, dealer reports of landings and 
electronic monitoring system) that are sufficient vehicles for 
improving data collection for shortfin mako sharks. The alternative 
that would implement mandatory reporting of recreational catches 
(Alternative C3) would unnecessarily increase the burden on 
recreational fishermen and monitoring of catches and compliance by NMFS 
because NMFS estimates of shortfin mako sharks in the recreational 
fishery currently have relatively high precision, as evidenced by the 
low percent standard error rates in the Large Pelagic Survey.
Rebuilding Measures
    Under the proposed measure (Alternative D3), NMFS would take action 
at the international level through ICCAT to develop a rebuilding plan 
for shortfin mako shark stock. As part of this, NMFS would promote 
Magnuson-Stevens Act's rebuilding provisions and approaches and other 
relevant provisions of the Act. See 16 U.S.C.

[[Page 35594]]

1812(c). This rebuilding plan would encompass the objectives set forth 
by ICCAT based on new scientific advice from the SCRS, which is 
currently scheduled to be available in 2019. Under this alternative, 
NMFS would continue to implement the new management measures adopted 
through this rulemaking for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks in 
United States fisheries based on ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. Any future 
international management recommendations adopted by ICCAT for shortfin 
mako sharks would be implemented domestically. Currently, the United 
States contributes only 11 percent of the mortality for North Atlantic 
shortfin mako sharks and domestic reductions of shortfin mako shark 
mortality alone could not end overfishing of the entire North Atlantic 
stock or effectively rebuild the stock. Therefore, NMFS will continue 
to take action at the international level through ICCAT, the relevant 
international fishery management organizations. Through this process, 
all ICCAT members fishing on the stock participate in the establishment 
of effective conservation and management measures to end overfishing of 
and rebuild shortfin mako sharks. In the long-term, any management 
recommendations adopted at the international level to end overfishing 
of shortfin mako sharks and rebuild the stock could have direct, 
moderate beneficial ecological impacts on the North Atlantic shortfin 
mako shark population by reducing overall mortality of shortfin mako 
sharks and rebuilding the stock. As an active member of ICCAT, the 
United States will participate and advocate for an effective rebuilding 
plan and continue to work through ICCAT on implementation and 
enforcement of effective conservation and management measures to end 
overfishing.
    In addition to Alternative D3, NMFS also considered No Action 
(Alternative D1) and alternatives that would establish a domestic 
rebuilding plan without ICCAT (Alternative D2); establish a species-
specific quota if established by ICCAT (Alternative D4); implement area 
management if established by ICCAT (Alternative D5); and bycatch caps 
(Alternative D6). The no action alternative would cause no rebuilding 
plan to be established. Alternative D2 (domestic rebuilding plan 
without ICCAT) would not be effective given the stock's range and the 
fact that the United States catches are only a small part of catches 
Atlantic-wide. Thus, this alternative would allow the stock to continue 
to be overfished, with overfishing continuing to occur. Given that U.S. 
catches of shortfin mako are small, Alternative D4 considers potential 
impacts of a shortfin mako shark quota if established by ICCAT as 
opposed to a unilateral U.S. quota. Alternative D4 is not preferred at 
this time, because ICCAT does not have a total allowable catch for 
shortfin mako shark, but instead, has measures aimed at reducing 
mortality and a six-month review to determine if further measures are 
needed. Alternative D5 (area management) is also not preferred at this 
time, because ICCAT has not adopted, and does not have scientific 
information yet to support, such a measure. The current ICCAT 
Recommendation calls on SCRS to provide additional scientific advice in 
2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal analysis of North 
Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to identify areas with 
high interactions. Alternative D6 (bycatch caps) is not preferred, 
because U.S. catches of shortfin mako are small thus unilateral U.S. 
bycatch caps will not address overfishing and rebuilding. This 
alternative would thus have more economic impacts than the preferred 
alternative without achieving the purpose and need of the action and 
would unfairly disadvantage U.S. fishermen, as ICCAT currently does not 
require bycatch caps.
Request for Comments
    NMFS is requesting comments on the alternatives and analyses 
described in this proposed rule and contained in the DEIS, IRFA, and 
RIR for Draft Amendment 11. Comments may be submitted via hhtp://
www.regulations.gov or mail. Comments may also be submitted at a public 
hearing (see Public Hearings and Special Accommodations below). We 
solicit comments on this proposed rule by October 1, 2018 (see DATES 
and ADDRESSES).
Public Hearings
    Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov or mail and comments may also be submitted at a 
public hearing. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by October 
1, 2018. During the comment period, NMFS will hold six public hearings 
and one operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and 
webinar for this proposed rule and draft Amendment 11. The hearing 
locations will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Gu[yacute] DuBeck at 301-427-8503, at least 7 
days prior to the meeting. NMFS has also asked to present information 
on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 11 to the Caribbean, Gulf of 
Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England Fishery 
Management Councils, and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico States Marine 
Fisheries Commissions at their meetings during the public comment 
period. Please see their meeting notices for dates, times, and 
locations. In addition, NMFS will present at the HMS Advisory Panel 
meeting in September, to discuss this rulemaking. NMFS will announce 
the location and times of HMS Advisory Panel meeting in a future 
Federal Register notice.

              Table 1--Dates, Times, and Locations of Upcoming Public Hearings and Conference Call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Venue                        Date/time           Meeting location    Location contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing.....................  August 22, 2018, 5      Corpus Christi, TX...  Dr. Clotilde Garcia Public
                                      p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Library, 5930 Brockhampton
                                                                                     Street, Corpus Christi, TX
                                                                                     78414.
Public Hearing.....................  August 23, 2018, 5      Linwood, NJ..........  Linwood Public Library, 301
                                      p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Davis Avenue, Linwood, NJ
                                                                                     08211.
Public Hearing.....................  August 28, 2018, 5      Manteo, NC...........  Commissioners Meeting Room,
                                      p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Dare County Administration
                                                                                     Building, 954 Marshall C.
                                                                                     Collins Drive, Manteo, NC
                                                                                     27954.
Public Hearing.....................  August 29, 2018, 5      Morehead City, NC....  NCDMF Central District
                                      p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Office, 5285 Highway 70
                                                                                     West, Morehead City, NC
                                                                                     28557.
Public Hearing.....................  August 30, 2018, 5      Gloucester, MA.......  National Marine Fisheries
                                      p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Service, Grater Atlantic
                                                                                     Regional Office, 55 Great
                                                                                     Republic Drive, Gloucester,
                                                                                     MA 01930.

[[Page 35595]]

 
Public Hearing.....................  August 30, 2018, 5      St. Petersburg, FL...  National Marine Fisheries
                                      p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Service, Southeast Regional
                                                                                     Office, 263 13th Avenue
                                                                                     South, St. Petersburg, FL
                                                                                     33701.
Conference call....................  September 12, 2018, 2   .....................  To participate in conference
                                      p.m.-4 p.m.                                    call, call: (888) 831-4306,
                                                                                     Passcode: 2693278, To
                                                                                     participate in webinar,
                                                                                     RSVP at: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?MTID=e64dda334375685e91c704ca0a5e9882f 91c704ca0a5e9882f, A
                                                                                     confirmation email with
                                                                                     webinar log-in information
                                                                                     will be sent after RSVP is
                                                                                     registered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public 
hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each 
public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules 
(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be 
called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to 
speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and 
attendees should not interrupt one another). At the beginning of the 
conference call, the moderator will explain how the conference call 
will be conducted and how and when attendees can provide comments. The 
NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all 
attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so 
choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). 
Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do 
not, they may be asked to leave the hearing or may not be allowed to 
speak during the conference call.

Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to 
further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared a DEIS for this proposed rule that discusses the 
impact on the environment that would result from this rule. A copy of 
the DEIS is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Notice of 
Availability of the DEIS is publishing in the Federal Register on the 
same day as this proposed rule. A summary of the impacts of the 
alternatives considered is described above.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this 
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of 
the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS 
(see ADDRESSES).
    Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the 
action is being considered. The purpose of Amendment 11 is to develop 
and implement management measures to address overfishing and take steps 
towards rebuilding the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock. 
Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, 
NMFS proposes to modify the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the 
stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent 
ICCAT Recommendation (17-08).
    Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the 
objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. (See Chapter 1 
of the DEIS for a full description of the objectives of this action.) 
Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, 
NMFS proposes to amend the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the 
stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent 
ICCAT Recommendation (17-08). NMFS has identified the following 
objectives with regard to this proposed action:
    <bullet> Address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks;
    <bullet> Develop and implement management measures consistent with 
ICCAT Recommendation 17-08; and
    <bullet> Take steps towards rebuilding the shortfin mako shark 
stock pending planned development of the ICCAT rebuilding plan, which 
is necessarily to effectively address stock rebuilding across its range
    Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide an 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. 
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria 
for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish 
harvesters. Provision is made under the SBA's regulations for an agency 
to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation 
with SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 
13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size 
standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size 
Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of 
conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the 
agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS 
must publish such size standards in the Federal Register, which NMFS 
did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). In this 
final rule effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business 
size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all 
businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA 
compliance purposes. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small 
entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 
million for commercial fishing. The SBA has established size standards 
for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including the scenic 
and sightseeing transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-
hire), which includes charter/party boat entities. The SBA has defined 
a small charter/party boat entity as one with average annual receipts 
(revenue) of less than $7.5 million.
    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the 
recreational management measures, HMS Angling (Recreational) category 
permits are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered 
businesses or small entities for purposes of the RFA because they are 
not engaged in commercial business activity. Vessels with the HMS 
Charter/Headboat category permit can operate as for-hire vessels. These 
permit holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes 
(i.e., they are engaged

[[Page 35596]]

in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or 
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have 
average annual revenues of less than $7.5 million). Overall, the 
recreational alternatives would have impacts on the portion of the 
3,618 HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders who fish for or retain 
sharks. There were also 282 registered HMS tournaments in 2017, which 
could be impacted by this rule. Of those registered HMS tournaments, 72 
had awards or prizes for pelagic sharks.
    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the 
preferred commercial alternatives, the average annual revenue per 
active pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $187,000 based on the 
170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated 
$31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any 
pelagic longline vessel between 2006 and 2016 was less than $1.9 
million, well below the NMFS small business size standard for 
commercial fishing businesses of $11 million. Other non-longline HMS 
commercial fishing vessels typically generally earn less revenue than 
pelagic longline vessels. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic HMS 
commercial permit holders to be small entities (i.e., they are engaged 
in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or 
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have 
combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its 
affiliated operations worldwide). The preferred commercial alternatives 
would apply to the 280 Atlantic tunas Longline category permit holders, 
221 directed shark permit holders, and 269 incidental shark permit 
holders. Of these 280 permit holders, 85 pelagic longline vessels were 
actively fishing in 2016 based on logbook records. Based on HMS logbook 
data, an average of 10 vessels that used gear other than pelagic 
longline gear interacted with shortfin mako sharks between 2012 and 
2016, which is also equal to the 2016 number of vessels reporting 
shortfin mako sharks on non-pelagic longline gear.
    NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not 
likely directly affect any small organizations or small government 
jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate 
economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there 
would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of 
vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length. More information 
regarding the description of the fisheries affected, and the categories 
and number of permit holders, can be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.
    Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new 
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action 
does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or 
record-keeping requirements.
    Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the 
extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in 
these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, 
domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, 
but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas 
Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This 
proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with any Federal rules.
    One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis 
shall discuss significant alternatives such as:
    1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements 
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities;
    2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
    3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and
    4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
small entities.
    These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C. 
603(c)(1)-(4)). NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives. 
Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot 
establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small 
entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of 
it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered 
small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small 
entities. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards 
that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking 
while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As 
described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives from 
different categories in this proposed rulemaking and provides 
rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the 
desired objectives.
    The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The 
IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross 
revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels.

Commercial Alternatives

    Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, would keep the non-
emergency rule regulations for shortfin mako sharks. Once the emergency 
rule for shortfin mako sharks expires, management measures would revert 
back to those effective before March 2018 (e.g., no requirement to 
release shortfin mako sharks that are alive at haulback). Directed and 
incidental shark LAP holders would continue to be allowed to land and 
sell shortfin mako sharks to an authorized dealer, subject to current 
limits, including the pelagic shark commercial quota. Short-term direct 
economic impacts on small entities would likely be neutral since 
commercial fishermen could continue to catch and retain shortfin mako 
sharks at a similar level and rate as the status quo.
    In recent years, about 180,000 lb dressed weight (dw) of shortfin 
mako sharks have been landed and the commercial revenues from shortfin 
mako sharks have averaged approximately $375,000 per year, which 
equates to approximately 1 percent of overall HMS ex-vessel revenues. 
Approximately 97.26 percent of shortfin mako commercial landings, based 
on dealer reports, were made by pelagic longline vessels. There were 85 
pelagic longline vessels that were active in 2016 based on logbook 
reports. Therefore, the average revenue from shortfin mako shark 
landings per pelagic longline vessel is $4,291 per year.
    Even though pelagic longline gear is the primary commercial gear 
used to land shortfin mako sharks, other gear types also occasionally 
interact with this species. Based on HMS logbook data, an average of 10 
vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear interacted with 
shortfin mako sharks between 2012 and 2016, which is also equal to the 
2016 number of vessels reporting shortfin mako sharks on non-pelagic 
longline gear. Therefore, these vessels that used gear other than 
pelagic longline gear landed an average of only $1,028 worth of 
shortfin mako sharks per year.

[[Page 35597]]

    Under Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, retention of 
shortfin mako sharks would only be allowed if the following three 
criteria are met: (1) The vessel has been issued a Directed or 
Incidental shark LAP, (2) the shark is dead at haulback, and (3) there 
is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel. This 
alternative is designed to be consistent with one of the limited 
provisions allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks under ICCAT 
Recommendation 17-08. Under the current HMS regulations, all HMS 
permitted vessels that fish with pelagic longline gear are already 
required to have a functional electronic monitoring system (79 FR 
71510; December 2, 2014) and either a Directed or an Incidental shark 
LAP. Vessels utilizing other gear types (i.e., gillnet or bottom 
longline) are not required to have an electronic monitoring system 
under current regulations but could choose to install one if the 
operator wishes to retain shortfin mako sharks that are dead at 
haulback and if the vessel holds a commercial shark LAP. Under this 
alternative, the electronic monitoring system would be used to verify 
the disposition of shortfin mako sharks at haulback to ensure that only 
sharks dead at haulback were retained.
    This alternative would be consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-
08 and would reduce the number of landings by pelagic longline vessels 
on average by 74 percent based on observer data from 2013-2016. A 74 
percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce revenues by an 
average of $3,175 per vessel for the 85 activate pelagic longline 
vessels and would eliminate all of the $1,028 in landing per vessel by 
the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that landing shortfin mako sharks 
since those vessels are unlikely to have electronic monitoring systems 
currently installed. Those non-pelagic longline vessels would need to 
pay to install electronic monitoring systems if they wish to retain 
shortfin mako sharks, introducing an additional expense for those 
vessels if it there were an economic incentive for those vessels to try 
to retain shortfin mako sharks under this alternative. Overall, this 
alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because 
these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed 
and sold by these fishing vessels. However, shortfin mako sharks are 
rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable 
target species.
    Alternative A3 is similar to Alternative A2 except that the ability 
to retain dead shortfin mako sharks would be limited to permit holders 
that opt in to a program that would use the existing electronic 
monitoring systems, which are currently used in relation to the bluefin 
tuna IBQ program, also to verify the disposition of shortfin mako 
sharks at haulback. In other words, this alternative would allow for 
retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback by persons 
with a Directed or Incidental shark LAP only if permit holders opt in 
to enhanced electronic monitoring coverage. If the permit holder does 
not opt in to the enhanced electronic monitoring coverage, they could 
not retain any shortfin mako sharks.
    The economic impacts to small entities under this alternative are 
expected to be similar to those under Alternative A2. Under this 
alternative, a portion of the pelagic longline fleet could opt out of 
any retention of shortfin mako sharks, resulting in a greater reduction 
in overall shark ex-vessel revenue for those vessels. Overall, the 
socioeconomic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are 
not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than 
one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Non-pelagic 
longline vessels would need to pay to install electronic monitoring 
systems if they wish to retain shortfin mako sharks, introducing an 
additional expense for those vessels. Due to the low commercial value 
of shortfin mako sharks and the high cost of electronic monitoring it 
is reasonable to expect that these fisheries will not install cameras 
and therefore will not retain shortfin mako sharks. Overall, this 
alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities, because 
these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed 
and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are 
rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable 
target species.
    Alternative A4 would establish a commercial minimum size of 83 
inches FL (210 cm FL) for retention of shortfin mako sharks caught 
incidentally during fishing for other species, whether the shark is 
dead or alive at haulback. Based on observer data, only six percent of 
shortfin mako sharks caught with pelagic longline gear greater than 83 
inches FL. Thus, restricting fishermen to retaining six percent of 
shortfin mako sharks would represent a considerable reduction in number 
of shortfin mako sharks landed and in the resulting ex-vessel revenue. 
A 94 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual 
revenues by an average of $4,034 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic 
longline vessels and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $966 
per vessel for the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin 
mako sharks. However, the overall economic impacts associated with 
these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as 
shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-
vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin 
mako landings by other gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, 
handgear) is very small. Overall, this alternative would have minor 
economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce 
the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing 
vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and 
are worth less than other more valuable target species.
    Alternative A5 would allow fishermen to retain shortfin mako sharks 
caught on any commercial gear (e.g., pelagic longline, bottom longline, 
gillnet, handgear) provided that an observer is on board that can 
verify that the shark was dead at haulback. Under this alternative, 
electronic monitoring would not be used to verify the disposition of 
shortfin mako sharks caught on pelagic longline gear, but instead 
pelagic longline vessels could only retain shortfin mako sharks when 
the sharks are dead at haulback and an observer is on board.
    Since only 5 percent of pelagic longline gear trips are observed, 
this alternative would result in a 95 percent reduction in the number 
of shortfin mako sharks retained on pelagic longline gear. A 95 percent 
reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual revenues by an 
average of $4,076 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic longline vessels 
and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $977 per vessel for 
the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin mako sharks. 
However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions 
in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks 
comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on 
average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other 
gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. 
Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small 
entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin 
mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin 
mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other 
more valuable target species.
    Alternative A6 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited 
sharks

[[Page 35598]]

list to prohibit any catch or retention of shortfin mako sharks in 
commercial HMS fisheries. In recent years, about 180,000 lb dw of 
shortfin mako sharks have been landed and the commercial revenues from 
shortfin mako sharks have averaged approximately $375,000 per year, 
which equates to approximately one percent of overall HMS ex-vessel 
revenues. That revenue would be eliminated under this alternative. 
Approximately 97.26 percent of shortfin mako commercial landings, based 
on dealer reports, were made by pelagic longline vessels. There were 85 
pelagic longline vessels that were active in 2016 based on logbook 
reports. Therefore, the average loss in annual revenue from shortfin 
mako shark landings per pelagic longline vessel would be $4,291 per 
year. The average loss in annual revenue from shortfin mako shark 
landings for vessel using other gear types would be $1,028 per year. 
However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions 
in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks 
comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on 
average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other 
gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. 
Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small 
entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin 
mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin 
mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other 
more valuable target species.

Recreational Alternatives

    While HMS Angling permit holders are not considered small entities 
by NMFS for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/
Headboat permit holders and tournament operators are considered to be 
small entities and could be potentially impacted by the various 
recreational alternatives, as described below.
    Alternative B1, the no action alternative, would not implement any 
management measures in the recreational shark fishery to decrease 
mortality of shortfin mako sharks. This would result in no additional 
economic impacts on small entities associated with this fishery in the 
short-term.
    Under Alternative B2, the minimum size limit for the retention of 
shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches 
FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks. This 
increase in the size limit is projected to reduce recreational landings 
by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks landed, and 49 percent in 
the weight of sharks landed. While this alternative would not establish 
a shortfin mako fishing season, such a significant increase in the 
minimum size limit would likely result in some reduction in directed 
fishing effort for shortfin mako sharks.
    Under Alternative B3, the preferred alternative, the minimum size 
limit for retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased to 83 
inches FL for both males and female sharks consistent with the measure 
implemented in the emergency rule. Assuming no reduction in directed 
fishing effort, this increase in the minimum size limit would result in 
an 83 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 68 
percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase 
in the minimum size limit and associated reduction in landings is 
unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. An 83 percent 
reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the 
percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 6 percent. At least one 
tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen 
to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL 
minimum size limit. Tournaments account for over half of directed 
recreational trips for shortfin mako sharks, and 77 percent of them in 
the month of June when effort is at its highest. This could result in a 
significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako 
sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some 
charter/headboats and tournament operators.
    Under Alternative B4, recreational HMS permit holders would only be 
allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 
inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 108 
inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this 
increase in the minimum size limit would result in a 76 percent 
reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 72 percent reduction in 
the weight of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako 
sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips 
harvesting them to approximately 9 percent. This could result in a 
significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako 
sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some 
charter/headboats and tournament operators.
    Under Alternative B5, recreational HMS permit holders would only be 
allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 
inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 120 
inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this 
increase in the size limit would result in a 76 percent reduction in 
the number of sharks landed, and a 73 percent reduction in the weight 
of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks 
harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting 
them to 8.6 percent. This could result in a significant reduction in 
directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to 
moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and 
tournament operators.
    Under Alternative B6a, the minimum size limit for the retention of 
shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches 
FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks, and a 
shortfin mako fishing season would be established from May through 
October. The fishing season established under this alternative would 
have little to no effect on shortfin mako fishing activity in the 
Northeast, but may reduce fishing effort in the South Atlantic and Gulf 
of Mexico regions; however, a lack of data on targeted trips for 
shortfin mako sharks in this region makes any assessment of potential 
socioeconomic impacts difficult. However, this combination of increase 
in the size limit and fishing season is projected to reduce 
recreational landings by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks 
landed, and 49 percent in the weight of sharks landed in the Northeast. 
A 64 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus 
reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 13 percent. 
This reduction on directed trips could lead to moderate adverse 
economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
    Under Alternative B6b, NMFS would establish a three-month fishing 
season for shortfin mako sharks spanning the summer months of June 
through August. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL 
minimum size limit for males and 100 inches FL for females. Based on 
estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 475 directed trips 
are taken for shortfin mako sharks each September and October, 
representing approximately 10 percent of all annual directed trips. No 
registered HMS tournaments held in September and October target sharks 
exclusively, so it is highly unlikely this alternative would result in 
the rescheduling of any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is 
much more likely that directed fishing effort would be affected by the 
increases in the

[[Page 35599]]

minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has 
minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks 
within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size 
limit should result in a 78 percent reduction in the number of sharks 
landed, and a 76 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. This 
reduction could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing 
trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse 
economic impacts on some charter/headboat operators.
    Under Alternative B6c, NMFS would establish a two-month fishing 
season for shortfin mako sharks for the months of June and July. This 
season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for 
males and 90 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large 
Pelagics Survey, on average 1,264 directed trips are taken for shortfin 
mako sharks each August through October, representing approximately 26 
percent of all annual directed trips. Only two registered HMS 
tournaments held in August through October target sharks exclusively, 
one out of New York that primarily targets thresher sharks and one out 
of Florida where participants fish exclusively from shore. Thus, it is 
highly unlikely this alternative would result in the rescheduling of 
any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is likely that directed 
fishing effort would also be affected by the increases in the minimum 
size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal 
effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within 
the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit 
should result in a 78 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, 
and a 76 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large 
increase in the size limit and associated reduction in landings is 
unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. A 78 percent 
reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the 
percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This 
reduction in directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic 
impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.
    Under Alternative B6d, NMFS would establish a one-month fishing 
season for shortfin mako sharks for the month of June only. This season 
would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 
83 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics 
Survey, on average 2,435 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako 
sharks each July through October, representing approximately 51 percent 
of all annual directed trips. Additionally, there are seven registered 
HMS tournaments held in July through October that target sharks 
exclusively, including three of four tournaments held in the state of 
Rhode Island, and the only tournament in Massachusetts to target sharks 
exclusively. It is likely that directed fishing effort would also be 
affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this 
increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort 
directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this 
combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 
79 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 78 percent 
reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the 
size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no 
effect on directed fishing effort. A 79 percent reduction in shortfin 
mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed 
trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This reduction in directed trips 
could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/
headboats and tournament operators.
    Under Alternative B6e, NMFS would establish a process and criteria 
for determining season dates and minimum size limits for shortfin mako 
sharks on an annual basis through inseason actions. This process would 
be similar to how the agency sets season opens and retention limits for 
the shark commercial fisheries and the Atlantic Tunas General category 
fishery. NMFS would review data on recreational landings, catch rates, 
and effort levels for shortfin mako sharks in the previous years, and 
establish season dates and minimum size limits that would be expected 
to achieve the reduction targets established by ICCAT, and the 
objectives of the HMS fisheries management plan. This alternative would 
also allow NMFS to minimize adverse economic impacts to the HMS 
recreational fishery by allowing for adjustments to the season and size 
limits based on observed reductions and redistribution of fishing 
effort resulting from measures implemented in previous years.
    Under Alternative B7, NMFS would implement a ``slot limit'' for 
shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery. Under a slot limit, 
recreational fishermen would only be allowed to retain shortfin mako 
sharks within a narrow size range (e.g., between 71 and 83 inches FL) 
with no retention above or below that slot. Assuming no reduction in 
directed fishing effort, this alternative would be expected to result 
in similar reductions in landings as other alternatives analyzed here. 
While this alternative would not establish a shortfin mako fishing 
season, as described above in earlier alternatives, such a significant 
increase in the size limit would likely result in some reduction in 
directed fishing effort for shortfin mako sharks. This reduction in 
effort may be further exacerbated by the complicated nature of slot 
limits regulations. Similar to Alternative B2, there are two factors 
that might minimize reductions in fishing effort (harvested shortfin 
mako sharks peaks between 71 and 77 inches FL and shifting focus to 
other HMS species). The amount of effort reduction by recreational 
fishermen would depend on how much HMS anglers and tournaments are 
satisfied to practice catch-and-release fishing for sub-legal shortfin 
mako sharks or shift their fishing effort to other species.
    Under Alternative B8, NMFS would establish a landings tag 
requirement and a yearly limit on the number of landings tags assigned 
to a vessel, for shortfin mako sharks over the minimum size limit. This 
requirement would be expected to negatively affect fishing effort. An 
increase in the minimum size limit and a yearly cap on landings for 
vessels would reduce effort drastically, while maintaining some 
opportunity for the recreational fleet. This effort reduction would 
adversely affect the charter fleet the most by limiting the number of 
trips that they could land shortfin mako sharks each year. This effort 
reduction may also affect their ability to book trips. At least one 
tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen 
to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL 
minimum size limit. By excluding tournaments from a landings tag 
requirement there may be a direct beneficial economic impact for 
tournaments, as this would be an additional opportunity, beyond their 
tags, to land shortfin mako sharks for permit holders.
    Alternative B9, a preferred alternative, would expand the 
requirement to use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook by all 
HMS permit holders with a shark endorsement when fishing for sharks 
recreationally, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures, to 
all waters managed within HMS management division. Currently, this 
requirement is in place for all Federally managed waters south of 
41[deg]43' N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), but this 
alternative would remove the

[[Page 35600]]

boundary line, requiring fishermen in all areas to use circle hooks. 
Recreational shark fishermen north of Chatham, Massachusetts would need 
to purchase circle hooks to comply with this requirement, although the 
cost in modest. Additionally, it is possible that once the circle hook 
requirement in expanded, fishermen in the newly impacted area could 
find reduced catch rates of sharks including shortfin mako sharks. If 
reduced catch rates are realized, effort in the recreational shark 
fishery, including the for-hire fleet, could be impacted by reduced 
number of trips or reduced demand for chartered trips.
    Alternative B10 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited 
sharks list to prohibit the retention of shortfin mako sharks in 
recreational HMS fisheries. HMS permit holders would be prohibited from 
retaining or landing shortfin mako sharks recreationally. In 
recreational fisheries, recreational fishermen would only be authorized 
to catch and release shortfin mako sharks. A prohibition on the 
retention of shortfin mako sharks is likely to disincentives some 
portion of the recreational shark fishery, particularly those 
individuals that plan to target shortfin mako sharks. Businesses that 
rely of recreational shark fishing such as tournament operators and 
charter/headboats may experience a decline in demand resulting in 
adverse economic impacts.

Monitoring Alternatives

    Alternative C1, the preferred alternative, would make no changes to 
the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako sharks 
in HMS fisheries. Since there would be no changes to the reporting 
requirements under this alternative, NMFS would expect fishing 
practices to remain the same and direct economic impacts in small 
entities to be neutral in the short-term.
    Under Alternative C2, NMFS would require vessels with a directed or 
incidental shark LAP to report daily the number of shortfin mako sharks 
retained and discarded dead, as well as fishing effort (number of sets 
and number of hooks) on a vessel monitoring system (VMS). A requirement 
to report shortfin mako shark catches on VMS for vessels with a shark 
LAP would be an additional reporting requirement for those vessels on 
their existing systems. For other commercial vessels that are currently 
only required to report in the HMS logbook, the requirement would mean 
installing VMS to report dead discards of shortfin mako and fishing 
effort.
    If a vessel has already installed a type-approved enhanced mobile 
transmitting unit (E-MTU) VMS unit, the only expense would be monthly 
communication service fees, which they may already be paying if the 
vessel is participating in a Council-managed fishery. Existing 
regulations require all vessel operators with E-MTU VMS units to 
provide hail out/in declarations and provide location reports on an 
hourly basis at all times while they are away from port. In order to 
comply with these regulations, vessel owners must subscribe to a 
communication service plan that includes an allowance for sending 
similar declarations (hail out/in) describing target species, fishing 
gear possessed, and estimated time/location of landing using their E-
MTU VMS. Given that most shortfin mako sharks are incidentally caught 
by pelagic longline vessels that are already required to have an E-MTU 
VMS system onboard, adverse economic impacts are not expected. If 
vessels with a shark LAP do not have an E-MTU VMS unit, direct, 
economic costs are expected as a result of having to pay for the E-MTU 
VMS unit (approximately $4,000) and a qualified marine electrician to 
install the unit ($400). VMS reporting requirements under this 
alternative could potentially provide undue burden to HMS commercial 
vessels that already report on catches, landings, and discards through 
vessel logbooks, dealer reports, and observer reports.
    Alternative C3 would implement mandatory reporting of all 
recreational interactions (landed and discarded) of shortfin mako 
sharks in HMS fisheries. Recreational HMS permit holders would have a 
variety of options for reporting shortfin mako shark landings including 
a phone-in system, internet website, and/or a smartphone app. HMS 
Angling and Charter/Headboat permit holders currently use this method 
for required reporting of each individual landing of bluefin tuna, 
billfish, and swordfish within 24 hours. NMFS has also maintained a 
shortfin mako shark reporting app as an educational tool to encourage 
the practice of catch-and-release. Additionally, the potential burden 
associated with mandatory landings reports for shortfin mako sharks 
would be significantly reduced under the increased minimum size limits 
being considered in this rulemaking, although it would still represent 
an increased burden over current reporting requirements. While HMS 
Angling permit holders are not considered small entities by NMFS for 
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/Headboat permit 
holders are considered to be small entities and would be potentially 
impacted by this alternative.

Rebuilding Alternatives

    Under Alternative D1, NMFS would not establish a rebuilding plan 
for shortfin mako sharks and would maintain the current recreational 
and commercial shark fishing regulations that pertain to shortfin mako 
sharks in U.S. fisheries. There would likely be no direct short-term 
impact on small entities from this alternative as there would be no 
change in fishing effort or landings of shortfin mako sharks that would 
impact revenues generated from the commercial and recreational 
fisheries.
    Under Alternative D2, NMFS would establish a domestic rebuilding 
plan for shortfin mako sharks unilaterally (i.e., without ICCAT). While 
such an alternative could avoid overfishing shortfin mako sharks in the 
United States by changing the way that the U.S. recreational and 
commercial fisheries operate, such a plan could not effectively rebuild 
the stock, since U.S. catches are only 11 percent of the reported catch 
Atlantic-wide. Such an alternative would be expected to cause short- 
and long-term direct economic impacts.
    Under Alternative D3, the preferred alternative, NMFS would take 
preliminary action toward rebuilding by adopting measures to end 
overfishing to establish a foundation for a rebuilding plan. NMFS would 
then take action at the international level through ICCAT to develop a 
rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks. ICCAT is planning to 
establish a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks in 2019, and this 
rebuilding plan would encompass the objectives set forth by ICCAT based 
on scientific advice from the SCRS. This alternative would not result 
in any changes to the current recreational and commercial domestic 
regulations for shortfin mako sharks in the short-term. There would 
likely be no direct short-term impact on small entities from this 
alternative as there would be no change in fishing effort or landings 
of shortfin mako sharks that would impact revenues generated from the 
commercial and recreational fisheries. Management measures to address 
overfishing of shortfin mako sharks could be adopted in 2019. These 
measures could change the way that the U.S. recreational and commercial 
shortfin mako shark fishery operates, which could cause long-term 
direct economic impacts. Any future action to implement international

[[Page 35601]]

measures would be analyzed in a separate rulemaking.
    Under Alternative D4, NMFS would remove shortfin mako sharks from 
the commercial pelagic shark management group and would implement a 
species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks as established by 
ICCAT, which would include both commercial and recreational catches as 
well as dead discards. In addition, NMFS would establish a new 
commercial pelagic shark species quota for common thresher and oceanic 
whitetip sharks based on recent landings. The 2017 ICCAT stock 
assessment indicated that the North Atlantic population of shortfin 
mako sharks is overfished and experiencing overfishing. In November 
2017, ICCAT adopted management measures (Recommendation 17-08) to 
address the overfishing determination, but did not recommend a total 
allowable catch (TAC) necessary to stop overfishing of shortfin mako 
sharks. Therefore, it is difficult at this time to determine how 
setting a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks would affect 
commercial and recreational fishing operations. However, this species-
specific quota may provide long-term direct, minor adverse economic 
impacts if ICCAT established a TAC for the United States that is well 
below the total average harvest by the United States (i.e., 379 mt 
whole weight (ww) or 195 mt dw) or below the current annual commercial 
quota for common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako (488 mt 
dw) as it could potentially limit the amount of harvest for fishermen. 
Short-term direct socioeconomic impacts would be neutral for 
Alternative D4 because initially there would be no reduction in fishing 
effort and practices.
    Under Alternative D5, NMFS would take steps to implement area-based 
management measures domestically if such measures are established by 
ICCAT. Recommendation 17-08 calls on the SCRS to provide additional 
scientific advice in 2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal 
analysis of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to 
identify areas with high interactions. Without a specific area to 
analyze at this time, the precise impacts with regard to impacts on 
commercial and recreational fishery operations cannot be determined. 
Implementing area management for shortfin mako sharks, if recommended 
by the scientific advice, could lead to a reduction in localized 
fishing effort, which would likely have adverse economic impacts for 
small entities that land shortfin mako sharks.
    Under Alternative D6, NMFS would establish bycatch caps for 
fisheries that interact with shortfin mako sharks. This alternative 
would impact the HMS pelagic longline and shark recreational fisheries 
similar to Alternative D4. However, this alternative could also impact 
non-HMS fisheries by closing those fisheries if the bycatch cap were 
reached. This alternative could lead to short-term adverse impacts 
since the bycatch caps could close fisheries if they are reached until 
those fishermen could modify fishing behavior to avoid shortfin mako 
sharks (even in fisheries where shortfin mako sharks are rarely, if 
ever, seen) and reduce interactions. In the long-term, this alternative 
would have neutral impacts as the vessels would avoid shortfin mako 
sharks. The impacts to small businesses are expected to be neutral in 
the short and long-term as their businesses would not change.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.


    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

0
2. Revise definition for ``FL (fork length)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  635.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    FL (fork length) means the straight-line measurement of a fish from 
the midpoint of the anterior edge of the fish to the fork of the caudal 
fin. The measurement is not made along the curve of the body.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  635.20, remove paragraph (e)(7), lift the suspension on 
paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6), and revise paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  635.20  Size limits.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) All sharks, except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (e)(1) 
through (e)(6) of this section, landed under the recreational retention 
limits specified at Sec.  635.22(c)(2) must be at least 54 inches (137 
cm) FL.
* * * * *
    (6) All North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks landed under the 
recreational retention limits specified at Sec.  635.22(c)(2) must be 
at least 83 inches (210 cm) fork length.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  635.21, revise paragraphs (a)(4), (c)(1)(iv), (f)(2) and 
(3), and (k)(1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Any person on board a vessel that is issued a commercial shark 
permit must release all shortfin mako sharks, whether alive or dead, 
caught with any gear other than pelagic longline gear.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel 
are required to promptly release in a manner that causes the least harm 
any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time of haulback. Any 
shortfin mako shark that is dead at the time of haulback may be 
retained provided the electronic monitoring system is installed and 
functioning in compliance with the requirements at Sec.  635.9.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required 
to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under this part and who 
is participating in an HMS registered tournament that bestows points, 
prizes, or awards for Atlantic sharks must deploy only non-offset, 
corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or 
landing sharks, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.
    (3) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required 
to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or an HMS 
Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement must deploy only non-
offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, 
possessing, or landing sharks, except when fishing with flies or 
artificial lures.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required 
to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under this part and who 
is participating in an HMS registered

[[Page 35602]]

tournament that bestows points, prizes, or awards for Atlantic sharks 
must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, 
retaining, possessing, or landing sharks, except when fishing with 
flies or artificial lures.
    (2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required 
to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or a person 
on board a vessel with an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark 
endorsement must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when 
fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing, except when fishing 
with flies or artificial lures.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  635.24, remove paragraphs (a)(4)(v) and (vi), lift the 
suspension for paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (iii), and revise paragraphs 
(a)(4)(i) and (iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.24  Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and 
BAYS tunas.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
directed shark LAP may retain, possess, or land pelagic sharks if the 
pelagic shark fishery is open per Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28. 
Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using pelagic 
longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of haulback 
per Sec.  635.21 (c)(1).
* * * * *
    (iii) Consistent with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, a 
person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental 
shark LAP may retain, possess, land, or sell no more than 16 SCS and 
pelagic sharks, combined, per vessel per trip, if the respective 
fishery is open per Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28. Of those 16 SCS and 
pelagic sharks per vessel per trip, no more than 8 shall be blacknose 
sharks. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using 
pelagic longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of 
haulback per Sec.  635.21(c)(1).
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  635.30, paragraph (c)(4) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.30  Possession at sea and landing.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Persons aboard a vessel that has been issued or is required to 
be issued a permit with a shark endorsement must maintain a shark 
intact through landing and offloading with the head, tail, and all fins 
naturally attached. The shark may be bled and the viscera may be 
removed.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  635.71, revise paragraphs (d)(22), (23), (27), (28), and 
(29) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (22) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish 
for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, 
corrodible circle hooks when fishing at a registered recreational HMS 
fishing tournament that has awards or prizes for sharks, as specified 
in Sec.  635.21(f) and (k).
    (23) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish 
for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, 
corrodible circle hooks when issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit or 
HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement, as specified in 
Sec.  635.21(f) and (k).
* * * * *
    (27) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught 
with gear other than pelagic longline gear as specified at Sec.  
635.21(a).
    (28) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught 
with pelagic longline gear and was alive at haulback as specified at 
Sec.  635.21(c)(1).
    (29) As specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(1), retain, land, or possess a 
shortfin mako shark that was caught with pelagic longline gear when the 
electronic monitoring system was not installed and functioning in 
compliance with the requirements at Sec.  635.9.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-15822 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P