16648 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 678

[Docket No. 961211348-7065-03; I.D.

092396B]

RIN 0648–AH77

Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Quotas, Bag

Limits, Prohibitions, and Requirements

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

implement certain measures authorized

by the Fishery Management Plan for

Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (FMP).

These measures: Reduce commercial

quotas for large coastal sharks, reduce

recreational bag limits; establish a

commercial quota for small coastal

sharks; prohibit directed commercial

fishing for, landing of, or sale of five

species of sharks; establish a

recreational catch-and-release only

fishery for white sharks; prohibit

filleting of sharks at sea; and refers to

the requirement for species-specific

identification by all owners or

operators, dealers, and tournament

operators of all sharks landed under the

framework provisions of the FMP. This

rule is intended to reduce effective

fishing mortality, stabilize the large

coastal shark population, facilitate

enforcement, and improve management

of Atlantic shark resources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final

Environmental Assessment and

Regulatory Impact Review/Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/

RIR/FRFA) may be obtained from the

Highly Migratory Species Management

Division (SF1), Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,

(301) 713–2347, fax (301) 713–1917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C.

Michael Bailey, John D. Kelly or Margo

B. Schulze, 301–713–2347, FAX 301–

713–1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Atlantic shark fishery is managed under

the FMP prepared by NMFS under

authority of Section 304(g) of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and

implemented through regulations found

at 50 CFR part 678. The current status

of the commercial and recreational

shark fisheries, the status of the shark

stocks, the proposed management

measures, and the anticipated effects of

the proposed management measures

were discussed in the preamble to the

proposed rule (61 FR 67295, December

20, 1996) and are not repeated here.

The framework provisions of the FMP

allow the Assistant Administrator (AA)

to make adjustments in specified

management measures in order to

achieve the FMP’s objectives of

preventing overfishing, and increasing

the benefits of shark resources to the

nation while reducing waste. This

action is being taken by the AA under

authority of the framework provisions of

the FMP and consistent with the

provisions of 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act.

Comments and Responses

Comments were requested for the

measures in the proposed rule. The

comment period on the proposed rule

was originally scheduled to end on

January 21, 1997. Four public hearings

were held on the proposed rule. Due to

scheduling conflicts for the final

hearing, the public comment period was

extended until January 24, 1997 (62 FR

1872, January 14, 1997). Based on

public request, the comment period was

again extended until February 7, 1997

(62 FR 4239, January 29, 1997), to allow

for additional public input.

NMFS received more than 600 written

comments from members of Congress,

regional fishery management councils,

states, the U.S. Coast Guard,

conservation organizations, a scientific

organization, scientists from four

universities, scientists from a marine

laboratory, recreational fishing

associations, marine oriented

publications, recreational fishermen

involved in the party/charter boat

business, a business that sells shark

parts, commercial fishermen,

commercial fishermen’s associations, a

fisheries development foundation,

individuals, and a shark fishery

observer. NMFS also received verbal

comments on this rule at public

hearings and other public meetings.

Agency responses to public comments

follow.

1. Large Coastal Shark Commercial

Quota

NMFS received several hundred

comments regarding the large coastal

shark commercial quota. In addition to

numerous individuals, seventy-four

comments from members of Congress,

regional fishery management councils,

states, conservation organizations, a

scientific organization, and recreational

fishing associations support a 50

percent or higher commercial quota

reduction for large coastal sharks as a

minimum measure to rebuild the large

coastal shark population. Other

commentors, including one state and

several commercial fishermen’s

associations, questioned the

effectiveness of the quota reduction

and/or strenuously opposed the quota

reduction and stated that the scientific

data, upon which the 1996 Stock

Evaluation Workshop (SEW) final report

is based, are incomplete, flawed, and/or

biased.

Comment: Stock assessment results

indicate that large coastal sharks remain

overfished and that rebuilding has not

begun. Demographic analyses show that

effective fishing mortality needs to be

halved in order for large coastal sharks

to recover. NMFS needs to take action

immediately and reduce the commercial

quota for large coastal sharks by 50

percent at a minimum.

Response: NMFS agrees that the 1996

SEW final report indicates that large

coastal sharks remain overfished and

that a risk-averse approach is needed. A

50 percent reduction in commercial

quota for large coastals is an

approximation to halving current

effective fishing mortality. Production

model analyses indicate that a 50

percent reduction in effective fishing

mortality is likely to maintain large

coastal sharks near 1996 levels. This

will ensure that allowable catches of

large coastals are consistent with the

best available scientific information and

reduce the probability of further

declines until a new rebuilding

schedule can be developed. The final

action is intended as an interim measure

because NMFS intends to update the

scientific information to the extent

practicable and to develop a long-term

rebuilding schedule for large coastal

sharks. NMFS intends to implement this

updated rebuilding schedule through an

FMP amendment in consultation with

an Advisory Panel (AP) as required by

the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act. At

that time, NMFS will analyze alternative

management measures, such as nursery/

pupping ground closures and minimum

sizes, and may adjust commercial quota

levels if alternative management

measures can supplement quotas in

controlling effective fishing mortality.

Towards this end, NMFS has

accelerated an ongoing effort to

determine the potential effects of these

alternative management measures on

fishing mortality.

Comment: NMFS should close the

large coastal commercial fishery until

there is clear evidence that rebuilding

has been initiated.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16649

Response: NMFS disagrees that a

fishery closure is necessary to initiate

rebuilding of large coastal sharks at this

time. The 1996 SEW final report

indicates that the rapid rate of decline

that characterized the stock in the mid

1980’s has slowed significantly and that

there is no statistically significant

evidence of further decline since the

FMP was implemented, indicating that

the FMP management measures

implemented have been working. While

it is true that clear evidence of

rebuilding is not available, NMFS

believes that the final action will reduce

the probability of further declines until

alternative management measures are

developed. The 1996 SEW production

model analyses, which are probabilistic

in nature, also indicate that a 50 percent

reduction in quota may lead to slow

rebuilding. Additionally, a fishery

closure would impose substantial

hardship on the commercial fishing

sector and would likely increase fishing

pressure on other fishery resources,

particularly the fully fished small

coastal and pelagic sharks.

Comment: NMFS should not reduce

the large coastal shark quota at all.

Recent increases in some catch per unit

effort indices in addition to significant

uncertainty in accuracy of data, model

simulation results, and interpretation of

assessment results do not warrant

drastic reductions. NMFS should

address alternative management

measures, which might mitigate or

eliminate the need for quota reductions,

before making significant changes in

commercial quotas.

Response: NMFS is aware that

different interpretations exist regarding

the accuracy and interpretation of the

1996 SEW stock assessment results.

These differences are an important part

of the scientific process which involves

rigorous discussion and analysis of all

interpretations of assessment results.

However, NMFS does not believe that

disagreement or uncertainty preclude

valid management actions. It is true that

some catch rate indices have shown

recent increases and that assessment

results can be interpreted to support the

status quo for quota levels. However, it

should be noted that none of those

increases in catch rate indices were

statistically significant because of high

variability in the data. Until a long-term

rebuilding schedule which includes

alternative management measures can

be analyzed and developed, NMFS

believes that a risk-averse approach is

necessary to reduce the probability of

further declines.

Comment: The State of North Carolina

expressed concern with the proposed 50

percent reduction in the quota by

stating: ‘‘Our concern with quota

reduction as the sole method of

achieving the reduction in fishing

mortality is that the population

simulation models are based on data

that are inadequate to incorporate the

benefits of the management measures

implemented in the FMP in 1993. These

data are not available because increases

in production since the 1993 FMP have

not entered the fishery.’’

Response: NMFS believes that there is

measurable evidence of the effects of

management since implementation of

the FMP. The 1996 SEW final report

states that the rapid rate of decline that

characterized the large coastal shark

stocks in the mid 1980’s has slowed

significantly. However, no clear

evidence is available that rebuilding has

begun. The report also states that

additional reductions in fishing

mortality would improve the probability

of stock increases. The commercial

quota reduction for large coastal species

is intended to be an interim measure

while other management options are

examined.

Comment: The 1996 SEW analyses

did not account for gear changes made

by the industry to use lighter leaders

and smaller hooks that result in

increased bite-offs, lowered catches and

catch rate indices, and smaller size of

fish landed.

Response: NMFS is aware that

changes in fishing patterns, including

gear modifications, can affect stock

assessment results but currently is

unable to account for such gear

modifications quantitatively due to lack

of detailed data. Nevertheless, this

change in fishing practice was taken

into account by comparing trends in

affected and unaffected catch rate

indices. Gear modifications including

changes like lighter leaders and smaller

hooks occurred only in the longline

commercial fisheries. However, the

1996 SEW stock assessment for large

coastal sharks included many different

catch rate indices from several different

commercial and recreational fisheries

(see the 1996 SEW final report detailed

discussion), including fishery

independent longline indices which

also show catch per unit effort declines.

Therefore, NMFS believes that declines

in catch rates, as evidenced from all

catch rates indices analyzed in the stock

assessment, are real. NMFS will

continue to include consideration of

these issues in analyzing and

developing a long-term rebuilding plan.

Comment: Significant amounts of data

on shark landings, particularly data on

fin landings, have not been incorporated

in the stock assessments, which may

substantially bias assessment results.

Response: It is NMFS’ practice to

incorporate landings information into

stock assessments, to the extent

appropriate, once it has been verified for

authenticity, and is in a usable format.

Not all data that exist in raw form can

or should be included in stock

assessments. However, NMFS is aware

that some data may not have been

included in the stock assessments

because they were unavailable (e.g.,

copies not provided to NMFS, not in

electronic form, etc.). To this end,

NMFS intends to work with industry to

recover missing data and use them, if

appropriate and practicable, in order to

increase stock assessment accuracy and

precision.

Comment: Quota reductions may

increase, not decrease, effective fishing

mortality as well as increase regulatory

discards and mortality of sharks that

cannot be landed during a closed

season. Thus National Standard 5,

which requires that ‘‘conservation and

management measures shall, where

practicable, consider efficiency in the

utilization of fishery resources,’’ and

National Standard 9, which requires

that ‘‘conservation and management

measures shall, to the extent practicable,

minimize bycatch and to the extent such

bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize

the mortality of such bycatch,’’ will be

violated as the shark fishery becomes

increasingly less efficient and regulatory

discards increase.

Response: NMFS believes that the

large coastal shark quota reduction will

reduce effective fishing mortality,

consistent with the best available

scientific information. NMFS has

concluded that any decrease in

efficiency due to a reduced quota is

outweighed by the benefits of

preventing further declines while

alternative management measures are

developed. In terms of increased

regulatory discards and the associated

mortality of sharks during a closed

season, NMFS does not believe that

maintaining commercial quota levels

above sustainable levels in order to

reduce discards is consistent with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Alternative

fishing methods are available to reduce

the unwanted catch of sharks (e.g., gear

modifications like lighter leaders,

avoiding inshore pupping and nursery

grounds where juvenile sharks

congregate, checking and resetting gear

frequently if shark catches are high, etc.)

that could reduce regulatory discards.

At this time, the AA does not have the

authority to create a bycatch set-aside

from the commercial quota for the

Atlantic shark fishery. However, as this

final rule is intended to be effective

until an FMP amendment can be
16650 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

developed, NMFS may examine the

need to restructure the shark

commercial fishery to create a bycatch

and discard set-aside to account for this

source of mortality. Finally, NMFS has

proposed regulations to address

overcapitalization of the shark

commercial fishery through a limited

access proposal that is intended to help

reduce derby fishing conditions and

thereby, reduce inefficiency in the shark

fishery (61 FR 68202). Some preliminary

comments on this proposed rule, which

would include creation of an incidental

permit category, also call for an

‘‘incidental’’ quota or set-aside. Comment: The State of North Carolina

was concerned that there may be a

conflict with National Standards 4 and

6. The state also requested clarification

of National Standard 10, which requires

that ‘‘Conservation and management

measures shall, to the extent practicable,

promote the safety of human life at sea’’

as it relates to the shortened quota

coinciding with the state’s winter

season.

Response: Regarding National

Standard 4, the FMP established an

allocation scheme between recreational

and commercial catches, and

semiannual commercial quotas allow for

two fishing seasons with equal harvest

allocations. The large coastal shark

quota reduction reduces the quota

equally for both fishing seasons and the

recreational bag limits are reduced to

maintain the FMP’s allocation scheme;

therefore, the final management

measures are fair and equitable to all

fishermen.

NMFS’ action is consistent with

National Standard 6. NMFS has

examined the biological and socioeconomic impacts of this final rule in

the accompanying Final Environmental

Assessment and Regulatory Impact

Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. National Standard 6 requires

flexibility and the ability to address

circumstances as they arise; NMFS is

responding to the most recent stock

assessment. The agency did account for

variations and contingencies by

reducing the large coastal commercial

quota, thereby preventing further

decline while a rebuilding program is

developed. Any changed circumstances

in the future will be addressed by

NMFS, in consultation with the AP.

Regarding National Standard 10,

NMFS’ analyses indicate that the winter

shark fishery for North Carolina ranges

from October through December and

that the fishery has not previously been

open during these months for that state.

NMFS is aware that derby fishing

conditions can develop when quota

reductions are proposed and, within the

constraints of regulatory processes,

NMFS has attempted to prevent these

conditions from developing. For

example, NMFS implemented a 4,000 lb

trip limit for large coastal sharks in an

attempt to slow the pace of the fishery;

this trip limit is currently in effect.

However, individuals must decide for

themselves whether or not it is safe to

fish, and NMFS encourages fishermen to

consider safety issues first and foremost

prior to making the decision to

participate in the fishery. Comment: One commercial

fishermen’s association commented that

NMFS should follow through on the

1994 SEW’s recommendation to protect

pupping areas and juvenile sharks,

rather than halve the quota. Response: NMFS does not have

regulatory authority over inshore waters

where most shark nursery/pupping

areas are located; however, NMFS has

been actively working with the coastal

states to reach agreement on cooperative

efforts to protect these critical nursery/

pupping areas. NMFS has greatly

accelerated ongoing research to develop

a nursery ground index and may use the

information from these research efforts

to develop, as part of the long-term

rebuilding plan, management measures

with states to close specific areas to

fishing activity when gravid females

and/or shark pups are present in those

areas.

Comment: One commercial

fishermen’s association commented that

foreign catches of large coastal and

pelagic sharks must be quantified and

considered in order for stock

assessments to include complete and

accurate data and be in compliance with

National Standard 3, which states that

‘‘to the extent practicable, an individual

stock of fish shall be managed as a unit

throughout its range, and interrelated

stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit

or in close coordination.’’

Response: NMFS has and will

continue to work closely with fisheries

scientists and managers from Atlantic

coastal states, Canada, and Mexico to

assess the state of shared stocks. NMFS

believes that international cooperation

and management of shared shark stocks

is very important to shark conservation

and prevention of overfishing. However,

NMFS believes that domestic action is

needed immediately and this interim

quota reduction is a risk-averse action,

based on the best scientific data

available, to protect all sharks found in

U.S. waters, not only shared stocks. Comment: The lack of a rational

rebuilding schedule should be

addressed before severe, short term

measures are implemented. Response: NMFS agrees that a

rebuilding schedule needs to be

developed to address the overfished

status of large coastal sharks. However,

NMFS disagrees that action should

await a rebuilding schedule to be

implemented in an amendment to the

shark FMP. The rebuilding plan

outlined in the original FMP was

determined to be inadequate to achieve

the goal of rebuilding the large costal

shark resource to a level consistent with

MSY (60 FR 21468, May 2, 1995). The

1996 SEW final report indicates that a

50 percent reduction in effective fishing

mortality should stabilize the large

coastal shark population near current

levels. This action is intended to reduce

the probability of further declines as the

rebuilding schedule is developed.

Comment: NMFS has not taken into

account the impacts of a large coastal

shark quota reduction on shoreside

entities, which are primarily small

businesses. Reducing the large coastal

shark quota will ruin the domestic shark

meat market because the extended

fishery closures and market gluts

disallow advanced planning required

for shark meat buyers to distribute and

advertise the product.

Response: NMFS believes that most

shoreside entities in the shark fishery

process and sell wet and/or dry shark

fins. Information available to NMFS

indicates that few shoreside entities

deal exclusively in domestic shark fins.

Such fin dealers import the majority of

fins from other countries and then reexport them unprocessed or semiprocessed to the Asian fin market.

Accordingly, U.S. shoreside fin dealers

supplement exports with domestic

shark fins but do not rely on the

domestic market. Because domestic

shark fins make up a very small

percentage of the U.S. fin dealer

product, a large coastal shark domestic

quota reduction would have negligible

impact on such shoreside entities gross

revenues.

On the other hand, there is a limited

domestic market for shark meat that

could be negatively impacted by a

reduced supply of product. However,

the commercial large coastal shark

fishery has been open for only a few

months each year such that shark meat

buyers necessarily have diversified.

Additionally, shark meat is not a high

value product and is readily substituted

by other products. Reducing the season,

even if by half, should not have a

substantial impact because of the

already short fishing season, low value

and volume of shark meat processed,

and the high degree of diversity in

shoreside operations. In consultation

with an AP, NMFS may develop a

market analysis for the shark fin

industry which may include an estimate
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16651

of the impacts of regulations on

processors and society.

Comment: Numerous commentors

were concerned that the final rule is

inconsistent with National Standard 2,

which states; ‘‘Conservation and

management measures shall be based

upon the best available scientific

information available.’’ Several

fishermen’s associations questioned the

accuracy and reliability of the 1996

SEW Report, and stated that the 50%

quota reduction was not a mandate, or

even a recommendation of, the SEW. In

addition, some commentors contended

that the SEW Report did not recommend

a 50% reduction in effective fishing

effort through a 50% quota reduction.

Response: The 1996 Report of the

SEW is based on a meeting of NMFS

and non-NMFS scientists. The nonNMFS scientists included

representatives from two fishery

management councils, two states, a

fisheries development foundation,

industry, and academia. All 1996 SEW

participants were given the opportunity

to comment on drafts of the report.

However, the final report was written

and edited by NMFS scientists and is

not, nor was ever intended to be, a

consensus document. The 1996 SEW

final report heavily weighs all stock

assessment participants’ views in its

conclusions and recommendations.

While different interpretations exist

regarding the accuracy and implications

of the stock assessment results, the 1996

SEW final report represents the best

scientific data available to NMFS. The

commercial quota reduction is a riskaverse action to ensure that allowable

catch levels of Atlantic sharks are

consistent with the best available

scientific information until an updated

rebuilding schedule can be developed.

Comment: One fishermen’s

association commented that the Shark

Operations Team (OT) did not consent

to a 50% quota reduction, and claims

that NMFS apparently selectively

consulted outside of the OT meeting

with certain OT members who support

dramatic reductions, which may violate

the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Response: In the proposed rule (61 FR

67295, December 20, 1996), the

statement ‘‘Members of the OT were

consulted and some members have been

instrumental in the formulation of this

proposed rule; * * *’’ meant that; 1)

some OT members agreed with the

determination of the SEW, and 2) NMFS

scientists who are also OT members

have been and will continue to be

routinely consulted on an ongoing basis.

NMFS did not meet with non-NMFS OT

members except at the public OT

meeting in August 1996. NMFS agrees

that the OT did not reach consensus

regarding a commercial quota reduction.

The final action is being taken

independently by the AA under

authority of the framework provisions of

the FMP because no consensus was

reached by the OT and NMFS has

concluded that action was necessary.

NMFS did, however, take into account

the various opinions raised at the OT

meeting.

2. Pelagic Shark Commercial Quota

NMFS received 65 comments

regarding the pelagic shark commercial

quota from members of Congress,

regional fishery management councils,

states, conservation organizations,

scientific organizations, and recreational

fishing associations. Comment: NMFS

should maintain the current commercial

pelagic shark quota. Pelagic sharks are

determined to be fully-fished and the

commercial quota, which was

established to ensure that the total

allowable catch (TAC) does not exceed

a level that would preclude maximum

sustainable yield (MSY), should not be

adjusted without new scientific analyses

and information.

Response: NMFS agrees.

Comment: NMFS should reduce the

pelagic shark commercial quota by 50

percent because the quota has never

been reached.

Response: No change in the

commercial quota for pelagic sharks was

proposed in this action. No new

analyses have been presented upon

which to modify MSY or the TAC of

pelagic sharks. Accordingly, the

estimates of MSY and TAC presented in

the FMP still constitute the best

available scientific information. Until

new analyses are presented, adjustments

to the pelagic shark quota are not

warranted. NMFS intends to amend the

FMP to address the overfished status of

large coastal sharks. At that time, the

pelagic shark quota may be adjusted if

new analyses warrant modifications.

3. Small Coastal Shark Commercial

Quota

NMFS received numerous comments

regarding the small coastal shark

commercial quota from members of

Congress, regional fishery management

councils, states, conservation

organizations, scientific organizations,

and recreational fishing associations.

Several commentors support

establishment of the proposed

commercial quota for small coastal

sharks, while others argued that no

quota was justified or that smaller

commercial quotas for small coastal

sharks were more appropriate.

Comment: NMFS should implement a

commercial quota for small coastal

sharks to prevent large increases in

fishing pressure that may result from

closure of other fishery resources.

Response: NMFS agrees.

Comment: NMFS should not

implement a commercial quota for small

coastal sharks because they are not

considered overfished and because the

proposed quota is much greater than

historical landings.

Response: The FMP concluded that

small coastal sharks were fully fished,

meaning that fishing mortality levels

should not increase or overfishing may

occur. NMFS believes that potential

displacement of vessels and crews from

the large coastal shark fishery into other

fisheries, including pelagic and small

coastal shark fisheries, may result in

increased fishing mortality on small

coastal sharks. NMFS believes that

implementing the commercial quota

outlined in the FMP is a preventative

measure to ensure that any increases in

fishing mortality do not exceed

allowable levels.

4. Recreational Bag Limits

NMFS has received numerous

comments concerning recreational bag

limits from members of Congress,

regional fishery management councils,

states, individual scientists,

conservation organizations, recreational

fishing associations, one fisheries

development foundation, and party/

charter boat owners.

Comment: Recreational bag limits

should be reduced as they are currently

excessively high and promote waste.

Response: NMFS agrees, with one

exception noted below.

Comment: Recreational bag limits

should not be reduced.

Response: The 1996 SEW final report

determined that large coastal sharks

continue to be overfished and that a 50

percent reduction in effective fishing

mortality should stabilize the stock at

current levels. Based on this report,

which constitutes the best available

scientific information, NMFS believes

that the bag limits, as well as the

commercial quota, should be reduced to

further protect and conserve the stocks.

Recreational bag limits are reduced

within the current allocation scheme

(established in the FMP) between

commercial and recreational fishing

interests. Without a reduction in the bag

limit equal to the percentage reduction

in the commercial quota, the positive

benefits of a reduction in effective

fishing mortality in the commercial

sector may be negated by increased

fishing mortality in the recreational

sector.
16652 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Given the status of the

small coastal stock and recent landings,

adding this group into an aggregate bag

limit is overly restrictive and unfair to

party/charterboats.

Response: The rationale for adding

the small coastal sharks into an

aggregate bag limit is the significant,

widespread misidentification of sharks,

especially juvenile large coastal sharks

identified as small coastal sharks. NMFS

believes that adding small coastal sharks

to a species aggregate with large coastals

will reduce fishing mortality on large

coastals and contribute to stock

recovery. However, after further review

of landings data and consultation with

NMFS and non-NMFS scientists, NMFS

recognizes that an additional allowance

for Atlantic sharpnose sharks,

Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, would

alleviate some of the impacts on

recreational operations. A separate bag

limit for Atlantic sharpnose is likely to

increase fishing mortality on this

species as fishing patterns shift away

from other species. However, the life

history of this species and stable

population trends since the 1970’s

despite considerable bycatch mortality

indicate that Atlantic sharpnose sharks

will not be negatively impacted by a

separate bag limit. Accordingly, NMFS

is changing the proposed reduction in

bag limits (two sharks per vessel per

trip) to the following: Two sharks per

vessel per trip, for any combination of

species except Atlantic sharpnose

sharks, which will have a bag limit of

two fish per person per trip.

Comment: Several commentors stated

grouping all shark species into one

recreational bag limit is not warranted

given the status of pelagic and small

coastal sharks, the ease of differentiating

pelagic sharks from other species, and

the differences in the fisheries.

Response: NMFS agrees that speciesspecific management would be a

preferred means of managing the fishery

given sufficient stock assessment data

and accuracy of species identification in

landings. However, as stated above,

widespread misidentification of sharks

continues to be a problem that requires

attention because of the overfished large

coastals. Additionally, NMFS believes

that potential displacement of vessels

and crews from the large coastal shark

fishery into other fisheries, including

pelagic and small coastal shark

fisheries, warrants adopting a single

recreational bag limit for all shark

species combined with the exception for

Atlantic sharpnose sharks as stated

above. NMFS agrees that, for certain

species that are readily identifiable,

species-specific management measures

may be possible in the future. NMFS has

accelerated efforts to develop a useful

shark identification manual and training

for fishermen.

5. Prohibited Species

Numerous members of Congress,

regional fishery management councils,

states, conservation organizations,

scientific associations, and recreational

fishing associations support the species

prohibitions whereas other recreational

fishing associations oppose the

prohibitions. Numerous scientists

expressed their concern that a

prohibition would adversely affect

ongoing research into these five species.

Comment: Some species of sharks are

especially vulnerable to

overexploitation and extra protection

should be afforded those species in the

form of directed fishery closures or

prevention of fishery development.

Response: NMFS agrees and has

determined that five species of sharks

that are highly susceptible to

overfishing should be excluded from

directed fishing to prevent overfishing

and to prevent development of

commercial and/or recreational

fisheries. The whale shark (Rhincodon

typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus

maximus), sand tiger shark (Odontaspis

taurus), bigeye sand tiger shark

(Odontaspis noronhai), and white shark

(Carcharodon carcharias), are removed

from the large coastal species group and

are reclassified as prohibited species.

These species are either encountered

very rarely in commercial shark

fisheries or are not landed because they

are not marketable. Therefore, this

action is a preventative measure to

ensure that overfishing of these species

does not occur. In order to continue

scientific research on these species,

previously issued provisions that allow

for scientific research activity and

exempted fishing apply (61 FR 26435,

May 28, 1996).

6. White Shark Recreational Catch-andRelease Only Fishery

Numerous members of Congress,

regional fishery management councils,

states, conservation organizations,

scientific associations, and recreational

fishing associations support the

proposed prohibitions on directed

fishing for, landing of, or sale of white

sharks. Several recreational fishing

associations and commercial

fishermen’s associations oppose the

prohibition. One conservation

organization commented that the catchand-release program may cause

increased mortality. Numerous

scientists expressed concern that a

prohibition on landing would adversely

affect ongoing research on white sharks.

Comment: The white shark is

especially vulnerable to overfishing and

since no directed commercial fishery

exists at this time, prohibited status

should be afforded this species to

prevent a directed fishery from

developing.

Response: NMFS agrees. The white

shark is relatively rare in commercial

landings data and very little is known

of its reproductive biology and

potential. Some evidence suggests that

white sharks may practice uterine

cannibalism, like sand tiger sharks, and

may be highly susceptible to

overfishing. NMFS believes that the

white shark deserves special protection

but acknowledges that there is, in parts

of their range, an active recreational

fishery for the white shark. Therefore,

NMFS removes the white shark from the

large coastal species group, making it a

commercially prohibited species, and

restricts fishing for white sharks to

recreational catch-and-release only. This

action will prevent a directed fishery

from developing, thereby preventing

overfishing, while still allowing

traditional recreational fishing to

continue. Similar to other prohibitions,

previously issued provisions that allow

for scientific research activity and

exempted fishing apply. Additionally,

NMFS may consider tagging and

reporting requirements for the white

shark fishery in the future. Those

fishermen who wish to tag white sharks

are encouraged to participate in a

NMFS-approved tag-and-release

program. Tags may be obtained from the

NMFS Cooperative Tagging Program,

Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75

Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL, 33149,

or the NMFS APEX Predator

Investigation Cooperative Shark Tagging

Program, 28 Tarzwell Drive,

Narragansett, RI, 02882.

Comment: Catch-and-release fishing

for white sharks may cause increased

mortality.

Response: NMFS is aware that there is

limited information regarding postrelease survival for white sharks and

that there may be some mortality

associated with a catch-and-release-only

fishery. However, it is unlikely that

mortality would increase from this

action because all recreationally caught

white sharks will be required to be

released, whereas not all are released

now. Therefore, even with some postrelease mortality, the increased release

rate should decrease mortality overall.

7. Prohibition on Filleting at Sea

NMFS received general support for

the prohibition on filleting sharks prior

to landing; however, the Office of

Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16653

Administration (SBA) commented that

costs would increase.

Comment: Prohibiting filleting at sea

will increase costs to vessel owner/

operators because they will be required

to fillet only once in port. Currently,

they are allowed to fillet sharks while

steaming into port, which saves

processing time and reduces labor costs.

Response: NMFS recognizes that costs

will likely increase somewhat but

believes that the benefits of increased

species-specific identification and

verification greatly outweigh those

costs. NMFS believes that the

prohibition is necessary to aid in

identification of landings by dealers

who must report by species.

Additionally, NMFS believes that many

fishermen currently allow processors to

fillet their sharks such that any increase

in costs for the fleet would be

minimized. NMFS adopts this

prohibition without change. Sharks

must be landed and brought to the point

of first landing with the flesh attached

and the spinal column present.

Fishermen may remove the head and

fins and eviscerate the catch.

8. Species-Specific Identification

Requirement

NMFS generally received support that

requiring species-specific identification

of all sharks landed will improve

management. Numerous dealers and

commercial and recreational fishermen

requested information on identification

of sharks.

9. Other comments.

Comment: Several commercial shark

fishermen, persons involved in shark

processing, commercial fishermen’s

associations, and one legal

representative of shark fishery interests

commented that NMFS’ determination

of no significant economic impact was

flawed and vastly underestimated the

impact of a 50 percent quota reduction

on all shark fishermen. In addition, the

SBA issued a letter to NMFS indicating

their disagreement with the

determination. The SBA stated that

most, if not all, shark fishermen are

small businesses that would suffer a

directly corresponding reduction in

gross revenue from a large coastal shark

quota reduction.

Response: No evidence is available to

NMFS to support the assumption that

there exists a directed fishery for sharks

that consists exclusively of specialist

shark fishermen who do not harvest any

other species of fish. NMFS’ permit

database indicates that 97.7 percent of

shark fishers hold permits for other

commercial fishing permits from the

Southeast Regional Permit Office

(SERO), which further supports the

multi-species nature of the fleet. Even

so, the 2.4 percent who do not hold

other SERO permits might hold permits

from other offices (e.g., Atlantic tunas)

or may not be active in the shark

fishery, although no integrated database

exists for cross-comparison. Since

vessels habitually switch to other

fisheries as part of the multi-species

nature of the fleet, reduction of the time

spent in the shark fishery will not affect

switching cost; switching still occurs

once or twice a year. In addition, since

implementation of the FMP in 1993, the

fishery has only been open for a short

period of time annually and NMFS

believes that few, if any, fishermen are

exclusively dependent upon income

from the large coastal shark fishery.

Therefore, alternative sources of income

have been necessary, either from other

fisheries or other occupations. While

NMFS agrees with SBA that most shark

vessels are considered small businesses,

SBA incorrectly assumes that a

reduction in large coastal shark quotas

will lead to a directly corresponding

reduction in gross ex-vessel revenues of

fishermen.

Comment: The State of Florida and

two conservation organizations

requested that NMFS prohibit the

landing of additional species, namely

certain rays and sawfish.

Response: NMFS may investigate the

need for affording protection to

additional species not currently

included in the management unit.

Adjustment of the management unit to

include additional species would

require an FMP amendment.

Comment: The State of Georgia

requested that NMFS place additional

restrictions on the use of gillnets in the

shark fishery.

Response: Gear restrictions are not

currently within the scope of the

framework authority under the FMP.

NMFS intends to amend the FMP to

address alternative management

measures and, at that time, may

examine the possibility of gear

restrictions.

Comment: Numerous conservation

organizations and individuals suggested

a 100 lb. minimum size for mako sharks.

Response: NMFS has previously

considered a minimum size for mako

sharks. A minimum size for mako

sharks was rejected in the FMP because

of inadequate supporting biological

information. No new analyses have been

presented to indicate a modification of

the current management for mako

sharks is warranted. NMFS may address

possible use of minimum sizes for this

and other species as part of the longterm rebuilding plan.

Comment: Two conservation

organizations commented that quota

overruns should be subtracted from the

following years’ quotas.

Response: This is not currently within

the authority of the FMP. Current

regulations allow for the adjustment

between quota periods within a single

year. NMFS may investigate the need for

adjusting quotas from year to year

during the FMP amendment process.

Comment: One fishermen’s

association commented that NMFS must

not implement retroactive quota

reductions.

Response: This is not a retroactive

quota reduction. The proposed rule was

published on December 20, 1996. The

fishing year for the Atlantic shark

fishery began on January 1, 1997, and

the fishery has been ongoing while

NMFS has considered comments on the

proposed rule. While this action affects

all landings beginning January 1, 1997,

it is reasonable because quotas have

been in place since 1993 and fishery

participants are cognizant of annual

quota adjustments. Additionally, NMFS

believes that any delay in the

implementation of the effective date of

this action will result in the quota being

exceeded for the first season and

possibly for the second season.

Other Issues: NMFS was provided

with additional data and analyses from

a fishermen’s association for further

consideration. The submitted data

include species composition, nominal

catch rate, and standardized abundance

index information from research surveys

conducted by the Bureau of Commercial

Fisheries (the precursor to NMFS), the

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,

and NMFS during the period 1957–

1996. No conclusions were presented

about the status of sharks. Further, this

information has not been reviewed or

analysed by any other scientists so the

scientific reliability of the approaches

taken to developing the depicted trends

in catch rates is unknown. Therefore, it

is inappropriate to use the statistics

presented to modify the conclusions

made in the 1996 SEW final report until

such analyses are conducted. The

commentor concludes that the analysis

presented raises questions about the

reliability of the large coastal shark

stock declines developed in the 1996

stock assessment. However, the

information depicted for the

standardized abundance index for

combined catches of sandbar, dusky,

silky, and blacktip sharks caught in the

western North Atlantic Ocean indicates

a decline of about 80 percent from

1986–1996, with each year’s abundance

index being less than the previous year’s

abundance index, except in 1992 and
16654 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1994. While these data may raise

questions about the magnitude of

declines in shark populations, as

estimated by the 1996 SEW final report,

they do indicate, consistent with the

1996 SEW final report, a substantial

decline. Indeed, they may represent an

even greater decline than that presented

in the 1996 SEW final report. In any

event, NMFS has concluded that they

are not sufficient to justify allowing the

fishery to continue without the

recommended reduction in effective

fishing mortality. The data presented

apparently warrant further assessment

by the scientific community and should

be examined for possible additional

modification to future commercial

quotas by the scientific community.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

Recreational Bag Limits

Based on public comments, one

management measure has been changed.

NMFS has determined that a separate

bag limit for Atlantic sharpnose sharks

is warranted for the reason outlined

above. Therefore, the recreational bag

limit is as follows: 2 sharks per vessel

per trip, for any combination of species

except Atlantic sharpnose sharks, which

will have a bag limit of 2 fish per person

per trip.

White shark recreational fishery

NMFS has changed tag-and-release to

catch-and-release-only recreational

fishing for the white shark. NMFS

intends to submit for OMB approval a

new collection-of-information reporting

requirement to require that recreational

fishing for white sharks operate under a

tag-and-release-only program.

Classification

The AA has determined that this rule

is necessary for the conservation and

management of shark resources in the

Atlantic Ocean and is consistent with

the national standards and other

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

and other applicable law. This rule has

been determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866. Copies of the

EA/RIR/FRFA are available (see

ADDRESSES). The EA/RIR/FRFA, in

combination with the SEW Report,

constitutes the annual SAFE Report.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce certified at the

proposed rule stage to the Chief Counsel

for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration that the proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. No Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis was prepared. During the

comment period, NMFS received

comments from the public and SBA that

indicated that the proposed rule may

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

NMFS, in response to the issues raised

during the comment period, prepared a

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(FRFA) to ensure a thorough analysis of

the impacts.

In summary, given the multispecies

and multigear nature of the commercial

shark fishery and the existing

management regulations that control the

harvest of sharks, few additional costs

are expected to be incurred by reducing

the size of the directed shark fishery

quota. At present, the shark fishery for

large coastal species lasts only a few

months twice a year and most, if not all,

participants have already had to

diversify into other fisheries to maintain

their financial viability. Evidence

available to NMFS indicates that it is

highly unlikely that vessel operators

could survive a fishery that lasts a total

of less than four months a year without

alternative sources of income, either

from other fisheries or other

occupations. In addition, the permit

database indicates that 97.7 percent of

permitted shark fishers hold other

fishing permits from the Southeast

Regional Permit Office (SERO). Even so,

the 2.4 percent who do not hold other

SERO permits might hold permits from

other offices (e.g. Atlantic tunas) or may

not participate in the Atlantic shark

fishery. NMFS estimates that a directed

shark fisher would earn at most $26,426

in gross revenues - not income - from

the large coastal shark fishery alone.

These revenues would be supplemented

by income from fishing on other

Atlantic sharks and other species such

as tunas and swordfish. Additionally,

nearly all Atlantic shark fishers operate

in the multispecies longline fishery

where gear requirements are

substantially similar and require only a

modification to fish at different depths.

Since vessels habitually access other

fisheries, reduction of the time spent in

the shark fishery will not affect

switching cost; the switching still

occurs once or twice a year.

Accordingly, a reduction in large coastal

shark quotas is highly unlikely to lead

to a directly-corresponding reduction in

gross ex-vessel revenues of fishers. The

result is that a reduction in quota

should have relatively little impact on

commercial shark fishing firms since the

season, even if cut by more than half,

would not adversely impact other

harvesting operations that take up the

majority of the fishing season.

Additionally, nearly all Atlantic shark

commercial fishers operate in the

multispecies longline fishery where gear

requirements are substantially similar

and require only a modification to fish

at different depths. Since vessels

habitually access other fisheries,

reduction of the time spent in the shark

fishery will not affect switching cost;

the switching still occurs once or twice

a year. Estimates of additional cost to

access other fisheries are therefore

expected to be minimal. The fact

remains that most shark fishermen are

longline operators and that longlines are

used to target Atlantic tunas, swordfish,

and other sharks as well. The other

Atlantic sharks, i.e. small coastals and

pelagic sharks, are subject to quotas

which are higher than historical catch

levels (the pelagic shark fishery has

never been closed). It should also be

noted that, the current trip limit for

large coastal sharks is designed, in part,

to mitigate the impact of restrictive

quotas on the industry. Trip limits help

to extend the season, minimize market

glut, and thereby maintain higher

prices.

NMFS notes that the Atlantic tunas

fishery is open access, and that with the

exception of bluefin tuna, Atlantic tunas

are not subject to quotas. The Atlantic

swordfish fishery is currently open

access and subject to a quota, although

the fishery has not been closed since the

fall of 1995. There is a proposal being

developed to limit access to the

swordfish fishery, however any current

participant with a history of swordfish

catch will be allowed to land and sell

swordfish under the rule as proposed.

Therefore, displaced fishers could

transfer effort to the Atlantic tuna, reef

fish, or coastal pelagic fisheries for king

and Spanish mackerel, and potentially

to Atlantic swordfish if previous

participation can be documented.

The recreational shark fisheries are

exploited primarily by private boat,

charter boat, and head boat based fishers

although some shore based fishers are

active in the fishery in the Florida Keys.

The restriction of 2 shark per vessel per

day could reduce consumer surplus

generated by a directed recreational

shark fishing trip. However, the costs of

reducing the landings rate should be

mitigated by the 2 Atlantic sharpnose

per person per trip exception as well as

alternative directed recreational fishing

trips for other fish species and by catchand-release fishing. In addition, the

state territorial seas should remain open

subject to their respective landings

regulations. This could cause a

reallocation of effort from offshore

waters to nearshore waters which could

increase fishing pressure on juvenile

stocks. However, major changes in net

benefits are not expected for

recreational fishers.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16655

The prohibition of fishing for, landing

or sale of whale, basking, sand tiger, and

bigeye sand tiger sharks will not

adversely affect gross revenue because

whale, basking, and bigeye sand tiger

sharks are only incidentally

encountered in commercial fisheries

and sand tiger sharks are not a

marketable species at this time. The

prohibition of fishing for, landing or

sale of white sharks will not adversely

affect gross revenue because they are

only incidentally encountered in the

commercial fishery. Requiring the

recreational white shark fishery to

operate under a catch-and-release-only

program may reduce the willingness of

recreational anglers to pay for a fishing

trip. The prohibition on filleting of

sharks at sea will have little economic

impact but will increase costs to

operators through increased labor to

fillet carcasses once in port.

In response to comments, NMFS did

modify the recreational bag limits to

allow additional limits for Atlantic

sharpnose sharks. It was determined

that providing this additional allowance

would alleviate some of the impacts on

recreational operations while not

negatively impacting the resource.

NMFS is aware that there may be

alternative actions that could stabilize

or improve the population status of

sharks. However, the 1996 SEW final

report indicated the need for immediate

reductions in effective fishing mortality.

Alternative actions, such as minimum

sizes and/or nursery and pupping area

closures, were recommended in general

by the 1996 SEW as mechanisms to

implement the immediate reductions in

effective fishing mortality required.

However, specific area closures or

minimum sizes were not examined.

Further, implementation of such

alternative actions would require more

scientific analyses and coordination

with Atlantic states and regional fishery

management councils, which would

delay the implementation of fishing

mortality reductions beyond the

recommendation of immediate action.

However, NMFS, consistent with recent

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act, is establishing an advisory panel

that will consider these alternatives and

others that could be less burdensome

and could achieve the appropriate levels

of fishing mortality necessary to rebuild

the shark resource in the context of the

FMP.

Further, under 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(3),

NMFS has determined that there is good

cause to waive the 30-day delay in

effective date as such a delay would be

contrary to the public interest.

Preliminary commercial landings

estimates indicate that as of March 15,

1997, approximately 740 metric tons

dressed weight of large coastal sharks

had been taken, which is 115 percent of

the first semiannual quota of 642 metric

tons dressed weight. If this harvest rate

continues, it is possible that a

significant portion or the entire first

semiannual quota might be taken prior

to the effective date of this action, if

delayed. Further, the second

semiannual quota would have to be

decreased by the overage in the first

semiannual quota, and this could

adversely affect the northern states if

that overage is significant. If this

authority results in a closure action for

the large coastal shark fishery, NMFS

has the ability to rapidly communicate

the closure to fishery participants

through its FAX network or NOAA

weather radio. To the extent practicable,

advance notice of such closure will be

provided.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no person is required to respond

to, nor shall any person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with, a

collection-of-information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid

OMB Control Number.

This rule contains no new collection

of information that may be subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act but refers to

requirements that have been approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget under Control Number 0648-

0016, 0648–0013, 0648–0205, 0648–

0229, and 0648–0306. NMFS intends to

submit a tagging reporting requirement

to OMB for approval.

The prohibitions section has been

reordered to group similar or associated

prohibitions. In addition, paragraphs are

now designated by numbers for the

purposes of clarification.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 678

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 678 is amended

as follows:

PART 678—ATLANTIC SHARKS

1. The authority citation for part 678

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 678.2, the definitions for

‘‘Dress’’, ‘‘Eviscerate’’, and ‘‘Fillet’’ are

added; and the definition for

‘‘Management Unit’’ is amended by

removing under paragraph (1), ‘‘Basking

sharks—Cetorhinidae’’, ‘‘Basking shark,

Cetorhinus maximus‘‘; ‘‘Sand tiger

sharks—Odontaspididae’’, ‘‘Bigeye sand

tiger, Odontaspis noronhai‘‘, ‘‘Sand

tiger, Odontaspis taurus‘‘ and ‘‘Whale

sharks—Rhincodontidae’’, ‘‘Whale

shark, Rhincodon typus‘‘, and by adding

a new paragraph (4) to read as follows:

§ 678.2 Definitions

* * * * *

Dress means to remove head, viscera,

and fins, but does not include removal

of the backbone, halving, quartering, or

otherwise further reducing the carcass.

* * * * *

Eviscerate means removal of the

alimentary organs only.

Fillet means to remove slices of fish

flesh, of irregular size and shape, from

the carcass by cuts made parallel to the

backbone.

* * * * *

Management Unit * * *

(4) Prohibited species:

Basking sharks - Cetorhinidae

Basking shark - Cetorhinidae

maximus

Mackerel sharks - Lamnidae

White shark - Carcharodon carcharias

Sand tiger sharks - Odontaspididae

Bigeye sand tiger - Odontaspis

noronhai

Sand tiger - Odontaspis taurus

Whale sharks - Rhincodontidae

Whale shark - Rhincodon typus

* * * * *

§ 678.5 [Amended]

3. In § 678.5, in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A)

and (B) after ‘‘market category’’ add ‘‘,

and species,’’.

4. Section 678.7 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 678.7 Prohibitions.

(a) In addition to the general

prohibitions specified in § 620.7 of this

chapter, and except as permitted under

§ 678.29, it is unlawful for any person

to do any of the following:

(1) Fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or

possess or attempt to fish for, purchase,

trade, barter, or possess the following

prohibited species:

Basking sharks-Cetorhinidae

Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus

Mackerel sharks-Lamnidae

White sharks-Carcharodon carcharias

Sand tiger sharks-Odontaspididae

Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis

noronhai

Sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus

Whale sharks-Rhincodontidae

Whale shark, Rhincodon typus

(2) Sell shark from the management

unit or be exempt from the bag limits

without a vessel permit as specified in

§ 678.4(a)(1).
16656 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Purchase, trade, or barter, or

attempt to purchase, trade, or barter, a

shark from the management unit

without an annual dealer permit, as

specified in § 678.4(a)(2).

(4) Falsify information required in

§ 678.4(b) and (c) on an application for

a permit. (5) Fail to display a permit, as

specified in § 678.4(h).

(6) Falsify or fail to provide

information required to be maintained,

submitted, or reported, as specified in

§ 678.5.

(7) Fail to make a shark available for

inspection or provide data on catch and

effort, as required by § 678.5(d).

(8) Falsify or fail to display and

maintain vessel identification, as

required by § 678.6.

(9) Falsify or fail to provide requested

information regarding a vessel’s trip, as

specified in § 678.10(a).

(10) Fail to embark an observer on a

trip when selected, as specified in

§ 678.10(b).

(11) Assault, resist, oppose, impede,

harass, intimidate, or interfere with a

NMFS-approved observer aboard a

vessel or prohibit or bar by command,

impediment, threat, coercion, or refusal

of reasonable assistance, an observer

from conducting his/her duties aboard a

vessel.

(12) Fail to provide an observer with

the required food, accommodations,

access, and assistance, as specified in

§ 678.10(c).

(13) Remove the fins from a shark and

discard the remainder, as specified in

§ 678.22 (a)(1).

(14) Possess shark fins, carcasses, or

parts on board, or offload shark fins

from, a fishing vessel, except as

specified in § 678.22, or possess shark

carcasses or parts on board, or offload

shark fins, carcasses, or parts from, a

vessel, except as specified in

§ 678.22(a)(2) and (3).

(15) Fail to release a shark that will

not be retained in the manner specified

in § 678.22(b).

(16) Land, or possess on any trip,

shark in excess of the vessel trip limit,

as specified in § 678.22(c)(1).

(17) Transfer a shark at sea, as

specified in §§ 678.22(c)(2) and

678.23(e).

(18) Fillet a shark at sea, as specified

in § 678.22(d), except that sharks may be

eviscerated and the head and fins may

be removed.

(19) Exceed the bag limits, as

specified in § 678.23 (a) through (c), or

operate a vessel with a shark on board

in excess of the bag limits, as specified

in § 678.23(d).

(20) Sell, trade, or barter, or attempt

to sell, trade, or barter, a shark harvested

in the EEZ, except as an owner or

operator of a vessel with a permit, as

specified in § 678.25(a), or sell, trade, or

barter, or attempt to sell, trade or barter,

a shark from the management unit,

except as an owner or operator of a

vessel with a permit, as specified in

§ 678.26.

(21) Purchase, trade, or barter, or

attempt to purchase, trade or barter,

shark meat or fins from the management

unit from an owner or operator of a

vessel that does not possess a vessel

permit, as specified in § 678.26(b); or

sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell,

trade, or barter, a shark from the

management unit, except to a permitted

dealer, as specified in § 678.26(d).

(22) Sell, purchase, trade, or barter, or

attempt to sell, purchase, trade, or

barter, shark fins that are

disproportionate to the weight of

carcasses landed, as specified in

§ 678.26(c).

(23) Interfere with, obstruct, delay, or

prevent by any means an investigation,

search, seizure, or disposition of seized

property in connection with

enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act.

(24) During a closure for a shark

species group, retain a shark of that

species group on board a vessel that has

been issued a permit under § 678.4,

except as provided in § 678.24(a), or

sell, purchase, trade, or barter or attempt

to sell, purchase, trade, or barter a shark

of that species group, as specified in

§ 678.24.

(25) Fish for sharks with a drift gillnet

that is 2.5 km or more in length or

possess a shark aboard a vessel

possessing such drift gillnet, as

specified in § 678.21.

(b) [Reserved]

5. In § 678.22, a new paragraph (d) is

added to read as follows:

§ 678.22 Harvest limitations.

* * * * *

(d) Filleting. (1) A shark from any of

the three management units that is

possessed in the EEZ, or harvested by a

vessel that has been issued a permit

pursuant to § 678.4, may not be filleted

at sea. Sharks may be eviscerated and

the head and fins may be removed. 6. In § 678.23, paragraphs (b) and (c)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 678.23 Bag limits.

* * * * *

(b) Large coastal, small coastal and

pelagic species, combined—2 per vessel

per trip. (c) Atlantic sharpnose shark—2 per

person per trip.

* * * * *

7. In § 678.24, paragraph (b) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 678.24 Commercial quotas.

* * * * *

(b) Semiannual. The following

commercial quotas apply:

(1) For the period January 1 through

June 30:

(i) Large coastal species—642 metric

tons, dressed weight.

(ii) Small coastal species—880 metric

tons, dressed weight.

(iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons,

dressed weight.

(2) For the period July 1 through

December 31:

(i) Large coastal species—642 metric

tons, dressed weight.

(ii) Small coastal species—880 metric

tons, dressed weight.

(iii) Pelagic species—290 metric tons,

dressed weight.

* * * * *

8. Section 678.29 is added to read as

follows:

§ 678.29 Catch-and-release program.

(a) Notwithstanding other provisions

of this part, a person may fish for, but

not retain, white sharks with rod and

reel only under a catch and release

program, provided the person releases

and returns such fish to the sea

immediately with a minimum of injury.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 97–8754 Filed 4–2–97; 8:53 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 678

[I.D. 031797B]

Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Large Coastal

Shark Species

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the

commercial fishery for large coastal

sharks conducted by vessels with a

Federal Atlantic shark permit in the

Western North Atlantic Ocean,

including the Gulf of Mexico and

Caribbean Sea. This action is necessary

because the semiannual quota of 642

metric tons (mt) for the period January

1 through June 30, 1997 has been

exceeded.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The closure is effective

from 11:30 p.m. local time April 7,

1997, through June 30, 1997.