35590 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

■ t. Section 36.378(b)(1); 

■ u. Section 36.379(b)(1) and (2); 

■ v. Section 36.380(d) and (e); 

■ w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and 

■ x. Section 36.382(a) 

[FR Doc. 2018–16040 Filed 7–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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: 

• 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. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Guy ́ DuBeck, NMFS/SF1, 1315 EastWest 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/atlantichighly-migratory-speciesor by 

contacting Guy ́ DuBeck at (301) 427– 

8503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy ́

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/atlantichighly-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 

(B2015) is substantially less than the 

biomass at maximum sustainable yield 

(BMSY) for eight of the nine models used 

for the assessment (B2015/BMSY = 

0.57¥0.85). In the ninth model, 

spawning stock fecundity (SSF) was less 

than SSFMSY (SSF2015/SSFMSY = 0.95). 

Additionally, the assessment indicated 

that fishing mortality (F2015) was greater 

than FMSY (1.93–4.38), with a combined 

90 percent probability from all models 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 postrelease 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 BMSY 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: 

• 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; 

• 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 

• 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 newlyimplemented 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35592 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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°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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 nontournament 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 MagnusonStevens Act’s rebuilding provisions and 

approaches and other relevant 

provisions of the Act. See 16 U.S.C. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35594 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 Atlanticwide. 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 Guy ́

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 p.m.–8 p.m ...... Corpus Christi, TX .......... Dr. Clotilde Garcia Public Library, 5930 Brockhampton 

Street, Corpus Christi, TX 78414. 

Public Hearing ......... August 23, 2018, 5 p.m.–8 p.m ...... Linwood, NJ ................... Linwood Public Library, 301 Davis Avenue, Linwood, 

NJ 08211. 

Public Hearing ......... August 28, 2018, 5 p.m.–8 p.m ...... Manteo, NC .................... Commissioners Meeting Room, Dare County Administration Building, 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive, 

Manteo, NC 27954. 

Public Hearing ......... August 29, 2018, 5 p.m.–8 p.m ...... Morehead City, NC ........ NCDMF Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, 

Morehead City, NC 28557. 

Public Hearing ......... August 30, 2018, 5 p.m.–8 p.m ...... Gloucester, MA .............. National Marine Fisheries Service, Grater Atlantic Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, 

MA 01930. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35595 

TABLE 1—DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATIONS OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONFERENCE CALL—Continued 

Venue Date/time Meeting location Location contact information 

Public Hearing ......... August 30, 2018, 5 p.m.–8 p.m ...... St. Petersburg, FL .......... National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 

33701. 

Conference call ........ September 12, 2018, 2 p.m.–4 p.m ......................................... To participate in conference call, call: (888) 831–4306, 

Passcode: 2693278, To participate in webinar, RSVP 

at: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?MTID=e64dda334375685e91c704

ca0a5e9882f, A confirmation email with webinar login 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 MagnusonStevens 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: 

• Address overfishing of shortfin 

mako sharks; 

• Develop and implement 

management measures consistent with 

ICCAT Recommendation 17–08; and 

• 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35596 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 recordkeeping 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 nonemergency 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 nonpelagic 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 nonpelagic 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 exvessel 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 exvessel 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35598 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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°43′ N 

latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), 

but this alternative would remove the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35600 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 shortterm. 

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 typeapproved 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-andrelease. 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 shortterm 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 speciesspecific 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Revise definition for ‘‘FL (fork 

length)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 635.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

FL (fork length) means the straightline 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 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: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 635.22(c)(2) must be at least 83 inches 

(210 cm) fork length. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 635.21, revise paragraphs (a)(4), 

(c)(1)(iv), (f)(2) and (3), and (k)(1) and 

(2) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 nonoffset, 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
35602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 145 / Friday, July 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 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: 

§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 §§ 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 § 635.21(c)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 635.30, paragraph (c)(4) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 635.71, revise paragraphs 

(d)(22), (23), (27), (28), and (29) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 635.21(c)(1). 

(29) As specified at § 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 § 635.9. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–15822 Filed 7–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–BH16 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; 

Amendment 20 to the Atlantic 

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish 

Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Announcement of availability of 

fishery management plan amendment; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council has submitted Amendment 20 

to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and 

Butterfish Fishery Management Plan to 

the Secretary of Commerce for review 

and approval. We are requesting 

comments from the public on this 

amendment. This action is necessary to 

prevent the reactivation of latent effort 

in the longfin squid fishery, preserve 

economic opportunities for more 

recently active participants in the 

longfin squid fishery, avoid overharvest 

during Trimester II (May–August) of the 

longfin squid fishery, and reduce 

potential negative impacts on inshore 

spawning longfin squid aggregations 

and egg mops. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council intends that these 

proposed measures would promote the 

sustainable utilization and conservation 

of the squid and butterfish resources, 

while promoting the sustained 

participation of fishing communities 

and minimizing adverse economic 

impacts on such communities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 25, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2017–0110, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- 

0110, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Michael Pentony, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great 

Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. 

Mark the outside of the envelope, 

‘‘Comments on Amendment 20.’’ 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

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). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1