40658 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 635 

[Docket No. 0612242866–8619–02] 

RIN 0648–AU89 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS); Atlantic Shark Management 

Measures; Republication 

Editorial Note: Federal Register rule 

document E8–13961, originally published at 

pages 35778 to 35833 in the issue of Tuesday, 

June 24, 2008, included several pages of 

duplicated text and deleted material. This 

document is being republished in its entirety. 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; fishing season 

notification. 

SUMMARY: This final rule implements 

the management measures described in 

Final Amendment 2 to the Atlantic 

HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). 

These management measures are 

designed to rebuild overfished species 

and prevent overfishing of Atlantic 

sharks. These measures include, but are 

not limited to, reductions in the 

commercial quotas, adjustments to 

commercial retention limits, 

establishment of a shark research 

fishery, a requirement for commercial 

vessels to maintain all fins on the shark 

carcasses through offloading, the 

establishment of two regional quotas for 

non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), 

the establishment of one annual season 

for commercial shark fishing instead of 

trimesters, changes in reporting 

requirements for dealers (including 

swordfish and tuna dealers), the 

establishment of additional time/area 

closures for bottom longline (BLL) 

fisheries, and changes to the authorized 

species for recreational fisheries. This 

rule also establishes the 2008 

commercial quota for all Atlantic shark 

species groups. These changes affect all 

commercial and recreational shark 

fishermen and shark dealers on the 

Atlantic Coast. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 24, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: For copies of Final 

Amendment 2 to the Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan, the 

Small Entity Compliance Guide, or 

other related documents, please write to 

the Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or 

call at (301) 713–2347 or fax to 

(301)713–1917. Copies are also available 

on the HMS website at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to the Highly 

Migratory Species Management Division 

at (301) 713–2347 or by fax to (301) 

713–1917 and by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 

(202) 395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Clark, Karyl Brewster-Geisz, or 

LeAnn Southward Hogan at 301–713– 

2347 or by fax at 301–713–1917; or 

Jackie Wilson at 240–338–3936. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Atlantic shark fisheries are 

managed under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 

Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented 

by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. 

NMFS announced its intent to prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 

65086), and held seven scoping 

meetings in January 2007 (72 FR 123, 

January 3, 2007). As described in the 

notice of intent, based on the results of 

the 2005 Canadian porbeagle shark 

stock assessment, the 2006 dusky shark 

stock assessment, and the 2005/2006 

LCS stock assessment, NMFS declared 

the current status of the LCS complex as 

unknown, sandbar sharks as overfished 

with overfishing occurring, the Gulf of 

Mexico blacktip shark population as not 

overfished with overfishing not 

occurring, the Atlantic blacktip shark 

population as unknown, the dusky 

shark as overfished with overfishing 

occurring, and porbeagle sharks as 

overfished with overfishing not 

occurring. Where there are overfished/ 

overfishing determinations, under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is 

required to develop management 

measures to rebuild overfished shark 

stocks and prevent overfishing. 

In March 2007, NMFS presented a 

predraft of the Amendment 2 to the 

HMS Advisory Panel (72 FR 7860, 

February 21, 2007). Based in part on the 

comments received during scoping and 

from the HMS Advisory Panel, on July 

27, 2007, NMFS developed further and 

then released the draft Amendment 2 to 

the Consolidated HMS FMP and the 

associated proposed rule (72 FR 41325; 

72 FR 41392). The public comment 

period was originally scheduled to end 

on October 10, 2007; however, it was 

subsequently extended (72 FR 56330, 

October 3, 2007) and reopened until 

December 17, 2007 (72 FR 64186, 

November 15, 2007), to provide the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils, 

the Interstate Marine Fisheries 

Commissions, and the public additional 

opportunity to submit comments. In 

addition to the written comments 

submitted, the public verbally 

commented on the proposed rule at five 

Regional Fishery Management Council 

meetings (New England, Mid-Atlantic, 

South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean), an Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission meeting, ten 

public hearings, and one HMS Advisory 

Panel meeting. The summary of the 

comments received and NMFS’ 

responses are provided below. Based on 

these public comments, NMFS reevaluated the preferred alternatives 

identified in the draft Amendment 2, 

made changes as outlined in Final 

Amendment 2, and now releases its 

final rule as modified after considering 

public comment. 

Consistent with the Consolidated 

HMS FMP objectives, the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law, 

the objectives for this final rule are to: 

(1) implement rebuilding plans for 

sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks; 

(2) provide an opportunity for the 

sustainable harvest of blacktip and other 

sharks, as appropriate; (3) prevent 

overfishing of Atlantic sharks; (4) 

analyze BLL time/area closures and take 

necessary action to maintain or modify 

the closures, as appropriate; and (5) 

improve, to the extent practicable, data 

collections or data collection programs. 

The rebuilding plans in Final 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP considers the recommendations in 

the stock assessments to be the best 

available scientific information on the 

status of the species and therefore, 

reflects those recommendations. This 

includes NMFS establishing rebuilding 

time periods that are as short as 

possible, taking into account the status 

and biology of the stocks and needs of 

the fishing communities according to 

National Standard (NS) 1 guidelines. 

The 2005/2006 stock assessment for 

the sandbar shark assumed that sandbar 

shark fishing mortality from 2005 to 

2007 would be maintained at levels 

similar to 2004 (the last year of data 

used in the stock assessment was from 

2004) and that there would be a 

constant total allowable catch (TAC) 

between 2008 and 2070. Using these 

assumptions, the projections indicated 

that sandbar sharks would have a 70– 

percent probability of rebuilding by 

2070 with a TAC of 220 mt whole 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40659 

weight (ww) (158 mt dressed weight 

(dw))/year and a 50–percent probability 

of rebuilding by 2070 with a TAC of 240 

mt ww (172 mt dw)/year. As described 

in Amendment 2, NMFS used the 70–

percent probability of rebuilding to 

ensure that the intended results of a 

management action are actually realized 

given the life history traits of sandbar 

sharks. 

Under the rebuilding plan, sandbar 

sharks are separated from the LCS 

complex, and the base commercial 

sandbar shark quota is established at 

116.6 mt dw/year, which results in a 

total sandbar shark TAC of 158.3 mt dw 

(220 mt ww) once other sources of 

sandbar sharks mortality are included. 

For the first five years of this rebuilding 

plan (through 2012), to account for 2007 

overharvests, the base commercial quota 

is reduced to 87.9 mt dw. The adjusted 

base quota through 2012 includes the 

amount of quota that would have been 

available in the 1st season of 2008 had 

NMFS not closed the fishery during that 

time. In the final rule for the 1st season 

of 2008, NMFS calculated that 78 mt dw 

(171,959 lb dw) would have been 

available (November 29, 2007, 72 FR 

67580). However, based on updates to 

the reported landings, NMFS adjusted 

the 78 mt dw estimate down to 66.2 mt 

dw (145,944 lb dw). The actual 

commercial quota available in any 

particular year may fluctuate based on 

overharvests and will be published via 

appropriate rulemaking in the Federal 

Register. 

Projections in the dusky shark stock 

assessment indicated that with the agestructured production model (i.e., 

baseline scenario), dusky sharks could 

be rebuilt with a 70–percent probability 

by the year 2400. Other projections from 

the three other modeling approaches 

indicate that rebuilding of dusky sharks 

will take between 100–400 years. As 

such, in this final rule, NMFS assumes 

that the rebuilding timeframe that 

would be as short as possible for dusky 

sharks would be at least 100 years. The 

harvest of dusky sharks has been 

prohibited since 2000. Despite this fact, 

dusky sharks are still overfished with 

overfishing occurring. NMFS believes 

this is at least partly due to the fact that 

they are caught as bycatch, 

predominantly in longline fisheries. 

Many of the final actions in this rule, 

such as establishing a shark research 

fishery with 100 percent observer 

coverage and decreasing the retention 

limits of non-sandbar large coastal 

sharks on all fishing vessels, should 

reduce dusky shark bycatch. This 

reduction in bycatch should aid in 

rebuilding and in collecting additional 

information to evaluate dusky shark 

status and catches. In the research 

fishery, if dusky shark catch is high by 

a particular vessel or in a particular 

region, NMFS could stop that vessel’s 

trip(s) or stop all research trips in that 

region and/or time. Additionally, if 

NMFS decides, after reviewing the data 

from a particular year, NMFS decides 

that the catch was too high in the 

research fishery, NMFS could adjust the 

research protocols and reduce effort or 

modify gear requirements, as needed. 

For the non-research fishery trips, 

NMFS could either reduce the retention 

limit in an attempt to reduce effort or 

work with the appropriate Regional 

Fishery Management Council to reduce 

bycatch mortality in certain fisheries, or 

consider other measures, as appropriate. 

A stock assessment was conducted for 

North Atlantic porbeagle sharks in 2005 

by the Canadian Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans. This assessment 

was reviewed by NMFS scientists who 

determined it used appropriate 

methodologies and all available fishery 

and biological data including U.S. 

landings and research. As a result of this 

review, NMFS determined that the 

assessment constituted the best 

available science. NMFS also 

determined that because the stock 

assessed is a unit stock that extends into 

U.S. waters, the assessment and its 

recommendations were appropriate for 

use in U.S. domestic management. The 

assessment recommended that there is a 

70–percent probability of rebuilding in 

100 years if fishing mortality levels are 

maintained at or below 0.04 (current 

fishing mortality level). Considering this 

science, NMFS believes that the 

rebuilding timeframe that is as short as 

possible is 100 years, which will allow 

a TAC of 11.3 mt dw based on current 

commercial landings of 1.7 mt dw, 

current commercial discards of 9.5 mt 

dw, and current recreational landings of 

0.1 mt dw. This results in a commercial 

porbeagle shark quota of 1.7 mt dw. 

This final rule does not contain 

detailed information regarding the 

management history of Atlantic sharks 

or the alternatives considered. Those 

issues are discussed in the preamble of 

the proposed rule. Additional 

information can also be found in the 

Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

HMS FMP available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). This final rule contains 

responses to comments received during 

the public comment period and a 

description of changes to the rule 

between proposed and final. The 

description of the changes to the 

proposed rule can be found after the 

response to comment section. 

Response to Comments 

A large number of individuals and 

groups provided both written and verbal 

comments on the proposed rule during 

the 143-day comment period, 10 public 

hearings, 5 Regional Fishery 

Management Council meetings, one 

Interstate Marine Fisheries Commission 

meeting, and one HMS Advisory Panel 

meeting. These comments resulted in 

numerous changes. The comments are 

summarized below together with NMFS’

responses. All of the comments are 

grouped together by major issue. There 

are 16 major issues: Quotas/Species 

Complexes; Porbeagle Sharks as 

Prohibited; Retention Limits; Fins on 

Requirement; Time Area Closures; 

Reporting; Seasons; Regions; 

Recreational Measures; Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) Report and Stock Assessment 

Frequency; Research Fishery/Preferred 

Alternative; Comments on Other 

Alternative Suites and Management 

Measures; Science; National Standards; 

Economic Impacts; and Miscellaneous. 

The comments are numbered 

consecutively, starting with 1, at the 

beginning of each issue. 

1. Quotas/Species Complexes 

a. Quotas 

Comment 1: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) should 

consider reducing the fishing mortality 

for overfished sandbar sharks. 

Response: NMFS is taking steps to 

reduce fishing mortality for overfished 

sandbar sharks. In particular, NMFS is 

reducing the base commercial quota for 

sandbar sharks to 116.6 mt dw. This 

amount is further reduced to 87.9 mt dw 

from 2008 through 2012 to account for 

2007 overharvests. This is more than an 

80–percent reduction in sandbar shark 

landings compared to the status quo 

(594.4 mt dw). This base commercial 

quota of 116.6 mt dw (which is then 

adjusted for overharvest) combined with 

estimated discards both within and 

outside the commercial shark fishery 

(e.g., including other commercial 

fisheries and recreational fisheries) is 

anticipated to keep sandbar mortality 

below the recommended total allowable 

catch (TAC) of 158.3 mt dw, which 

gives this stock a 70–percent probability 

of rebuilding by 2070, as described in 

Chapter one of Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP. 

Comment 2: NMFS should have 

considered Individual Transferable 

Quotas (ITQs) for the shark fishery in 

this rulemaking. The quota is just too 

small for the number of participants. 

Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) or 

ITQs would accomplish the same 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40660 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

objectives as the research fishery. ITQs/ 

IFQs are the fairest, simplest, most 

rational method for this dilemma. 

NMFS should switch to an ITQ system 

with no trip limit, because a lot of times 

fishermen do not weigh the sharks. 

Rather, fishermen know their legal trip 

limit based on how they fill their fish 

boxes. An ITQ system with no trip limit 

would result in fewer dead discards. 

Response: ITQs may be beneficial in 

many fisheries, and NMFS may consider 

developing an IFQ or Limited Access 

Privilege Programs (LAPPs) for sharks as 

well as other HMS in the future. NMFS 

did not consider ITQs to be a reasonable 

alternative for this rulemaking given the 

strict 1-year timeline to which NMFS 

must adhere in setting up a system for 

rebuilding a fishery under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Furthermore, 

overfishing of sharks would have 

continued during an extensive ITQ 

development phase, which would have 

been inconsistent with NMFS’ mandate 

in section 304(e) of the MagnusonStevens Act to rebuild overfished 

stocks. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

states that for stocks identified as 

overfished or having overfishing 

occurring, the Secretary of Commerce or 

the relevant Council, as appropriate, 

shall prepare a fishery management 

plan, plan amendment, or proposed 

regulations for the fishery to end 

overfishing in the fishery and rebuild 

affected stocks within one year of that 

determination. NMFS satisfied that 

timing provision: sandbar sharks and 

dusky sharks were determined to be 

overfished with overfishing occurring 

on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65086), 

and NMFS published Draft Amendment 

2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP on July 

27, 2007 (72 FR 41325). NMFS notes 

that the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act amended section 

304(e) to include a two-year timing 

provision for preparation and 

implementation of actions, and the new 

provision will be effective July 12, 2009. 

Given section 304 and other timing 

considerations for this action, NMFS 

did not consider an ITQ system as a 

reasonable alternative, as it takes several 

years to properly design an ITQ system 

that appropriately considers the views 

of all stakeholders and then to 

implement such a system. The general 

requirements for ITQs or LAPPs were 

included in the 2007 reauthorized 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (section 303A). 

Overall, two basic things must be done 

when implementing a LAPP system: 1) 

determine who would receive and who 

can hold the harvest privileges; and 2) 

define the nature of the harvest 

privileges. In addition, NMFS is 

currently establishing referenda 

requirements for LAPPs (for instance, a 

particular allocation scheme must be 

approved by a given level of the 

industry). In addition, unlike the 

research fishery, which would allow an 

individual fisherman to target sharks on 

a yearly basis, allocation under an ITQ, 

IFQ, or LAPP would be for a much 

longer time period. Because fishermen 

would have these allocations for a long 

time, NMFS traditionally works 

extensively with all stakeholders to 

devise the best allocation scheme 

possible for these type of permit 

programs through workshops and other 

meetings. 

Comment 3: NMFS should reconsider 

how it calculated the non-sandbar Large 

Coastal Shark (LCS) quota. The nonsandbar LCS quota is low because 

fishermen were not targeting nonsandbar LCS in the past. They were 

targeting sandbar sharks. If fishermen 

had been targeting non-sandbar LCS, 

historical landings would be much 

higher, and there would be a larger nonsandbar LCS quota than is currently 

proposed. 

Response: NMFS is implementing a 

larger non-sandbar LCS base quota of 

627.8 mt dw outside the shark research 

fishery based on dealer reports rather 

than logbooks, as originally proposed. 

By using dealer reports, NMFS included 

in its calculations landings outside of 

NMFS’ jurisdiction (e.g., state landings) 

and thus maintained consistency in 

establishing the quota with data used in 

the stock assessments. 

In using historical landings reported 

by shark dealers to calculate the nonsandbar LCS quota, NMFS follows the 

recommendations of the stock 

assessments for Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic blacktip shark populations. 

These stock assessments recommended 

keeping catch levels the same in the 

Atlantic region and not increasing catch 

levels in the Gulf of Mexico region. 

Basing quotas on dealer reports would 

cap fishing effort at historical levels and 

keep stocks in the Gulf of Mexico 

healthy and stocks in the Atlantic from 

declining. Setting quotas higher than 

these levels could have detrimental 

effects on shark stocks. 

Comment 4: NMFS should consider 

allocating the entire sandbar quota to 

fishermen participating in the research 

fishery because giving a few sandbar 

sharks to those outside of the research 

fishery would not be worth it. NMFS 

should also consider only allowing 

fishermen with directed shark permits 

to participate in the shark fishery. 

Response: NMFS considered the 

option discussed in the comment. 

Under the final action, NMFS is 

allocating the entire 87.9 mt dw 

adjusted sandbar quota to the shark 

research fishery. NMFS will publish a 

Federal Register notice each year, 

inviting applications from permit 

holders who are willing to participate in 

the shark research fishery. Within that 

notice, NMFS will publish the selection 

criteria that NMFS would use to select 

participants for the research fishery. For 

example, depending on the research 

objectives for a given year, NMFS may 

consider applications from a variety of 

permit holders, including directed, 

incidental, and charter/headboat (CHB) 

permit holders, for participation in the 

shark research fishery. 

Comment 5: NMFS should 

acknowledge that the proposed 

reduction in quotas is the end of the 

directed shark fishery. NMFS should 

ensure that sharks are not discarded and 

accommodate incidental landings 

whenever possible. 

Response: The final actions will likely 

end the directed shark fishery for 

certain species. With the reductions in 

the sandbar quota, the reduction in 

retention limits, and the prohibition on 

retaining sandbar sharks outside the 

research fishery, fishermen with 

directed shark permits will likely no 

longer target LCS outside of the research 

fishery. As described above, these 

modifications to quotas and retention 

limits are necessary to end overfishing 

and rebuild overfished stocks. 

However, as suggested by the 

commenter, NMFS tried to 

accommodate incidental landings in 

other fisheries. Under the final action, 

fishermen can still retain some nonsandbar LCS while they fish for other 

species (e.g., reef fish and snappergrouper). A fisherman with a directed 

shark permit could harvest 33 nonsandbar LCS per trip and a fisherman 

with an incidental shark permit could 

land 3 non-sandbar LCS per trip. The 

trip limit for directed shark permit 

holders is based, in part, on BLL 

observer program data from 2005 to 

2007. The observer data showed that 

fishermen with directed shark permits 

fishing for snapper-grouper kept, on 

average, 12 sharks per trip. A 33 nonsandbar trip limit should allow 

fishermen with directed permits to 

retain sharks (besides sandbar sharks) 

they catch while targeting other species 

and should minimize discards. The 

incidental trip limit is based on what 

fishermen with incidental permits 

currently retain under the status quo. 

NMFS also considered whether 

limiting sandbar harvest to the research 

fishery would increase dead discards or 

if NMFS needed to include a trip limit 

for sandbar sharks. Observer data 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40661 

indicate that fishermen targeting species 

other than sharks (i.e., snapper-grouper) 

catch, on average, one sandbar shark per 

trip. Given that sets on trips not 

targeting sharks are typically shorter in 

length and duration than sets on trips 

targeting sharks, it is anticipated that 

sandbar sharks would remain on the 

gear for less time than on trips targeting 

shark species, and, thus, would have a 

greater likelihood of being released 

alive. Therefore, the current trip limits 

are not anticipated to result in increased 

dead discards. 

Comment 6: NMFS needs to take a 

more a precautionary approach in 

regard to hammerheads, common 

thresher sharks, and blacktip sharks in 

the Atlantic region, which have an 

unknown stock status; NMFS should 

follow international organizations such 

as the International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and pay 

attention to red listed shark species 

such as hammerheads, dusky, and sand 

tiger sharks, which would likely be 

taken (under the quota or as bycatch) in 

the fishery and are particularly 

depleted. Considering these factors, as 

well as NMFS’ poor record for shark 

recovery to date, NMFS should close the 

commercial shark fishery; NMFS should 

put a moratorium on LCS fishing in the 

Atlantic until the stock status of 

Atlantic blacktip sharks is known; 

NMFS should only allow fishing for 

Atlantic blacktip sharks within 

scientifically derived limits when the 

population is capable of supporting 

such exploitation and bycatch of 

prohibited species is demonstrated to be 

insignificant. 

Response: NMFS is implementing 

management measures based on the 

latest NMFS-conducted stock 

assessments for blacktip, dusky, and 

sandbar sharks, and the LCS complex, 

which represent the best available peer 

reviewed science. NMFS is also 

implementing management measures 

based on the latest Canadian-based 

stock assessment for porbeagle sharks, 

which NMFS determined represents the 

best available science. The management 

measures in this final rule are consistent 

with the rebuilding targets established 

in these shark stock assessments, and 

the rebuilding time periods are as short 

as possible, taking into account the 

status and biology of the stocks and 

needs of the fishing communities 

according to NS 1 guidelines. 

In general, shark stock status 

determinations are based on NMFSconducted stock assessments. NMFS 

uses the Southeast Data, Assessment, 

and Review (SEDAR) process for shark 

stock assessments, which is open to the 

public and uses the Center for 

Independent Experts (CIE) to provide 

independent peer reviews of assessment 

results. 

These assessments consider landings 

by other countries such as Mexico and 

Canada but contain mostly U.S. data. 

For shark species that may have 

substantial landings outside of the 

United States (e.g., blue shark), NMFS 

also relies on the results of the Standing 

Committee for Research and Statistics 

(SCRS) of the International Commission 

for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

(ICCAT). These stock assessments are 

conducted with scientists and data from 

throughout the world, including U.S. 

scientists and data. In the case of 

porbeagle sharks, SCRS determined that 

ICCAT did not need to conduct a stock 

assessment since Canada had already 

conducted one. As such, NMFS 

scientists reviewed the Canadian stock 

assessment and determined it was 

appropriate for use in domestic 

management. 

To date, NMFS has not relied on 

outside organizations, such as the IUCN, 

when making stock status 

determinations. This is due to the 

unknown nature of the data and peer 

review methodology applied by these 

outside groups. 

The latest blacktip shark assessments 

recommended not increasing catch 

levels in the Gulf of Mexico and keeping 

catch levels at historical levels in the 

Atlantic. To account for differences in 

catch between the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic region and to follow 

recommendations from the blacktip 

shark stock assessments, NMFS is 

implementing a Gulf of Mexico nonsandbar LCS regional quota and an 

Atlantic non-sandbar LCS regional 

quota based on historical landings from 

HMS shark dealer reports from 2003 to 

2005. Based on dealer reports, the 

Atlantic region has a lower non-sandbar 

LCS base quota (188.34 mt dw) than the 

Gulf of Mexico region (439.5 mt dw). 

Since the Atlantic blacktip shark stock 

assessment recommended not changing 

landings and did not recommend 

prohibiting the harvest of blacktip 

sharks, NMFS is implementing this 

regional quota based on historical 

landings in the Atlantic region. 

Unlike the sandbar shark assessment, 

which recommended a specific TAC, or 

the blacktip stock assessments, which 

recommended specific catch levels, the 

dusky shark assessment did not give 

specific mortality targets. Dusky sharks 

have been on the prohibited species list 

in 2000; however, there continue to be 

dusky shark discards in other fisheries. 

NMFS estimated reduction in dusky 

shark mortality as a result of sandbar 

shark and non-sandbar LCS 

management actions. Based on the 

reduced quotas and trip limits, NMFS 

estimates that dusky shark mortality 

will likely be reduced from 33.1 mt dw 

to 9.1 mt dw per year. This is a 73–

percent reduction in mortality 

compared to the status quo, which 

should help rebuild the dusky shark 

population and afford dusky sharks 

more protection compared to the status 

quo. 

Finally, NMFS is aware of a separate 

external hammerhead shark stock 

assessment that is being conducted, but 

not aware of separate stock assessments 

for common threshers or sand tiger 

sharks. Conducting stock assessments at 

a species specific level is difficult due 

to the lack of species-specific 

information collected to conduct stock 

assessments for each species of sharks 

involved in commercial shark fisheries. 

Therefore, species such as hammerhead 

sharks and common threshers are 

managed within species complexes. 

While NMFS is not implementing 

management measures for hammerhead 

sharks, it is likely that hammerhead 

shark landings will be reduced due to 

the reduced non-sandbar LCS quota and 

retention limits. 

NMFS has not considered specific 

management actions for common 

threshers in this rulemaking, but an 

annual quota is in place for the pelagic 

shark complex (488 mt dw), and 

underharvests of this complex are not 

applied to the next season. NMFS may 

consider additional management actions 

for this species, as warranted, in the 

future. 

For sand tiger sharks, based on their 

high vulnerability to exploitation and to 

discourage any future directed fisheries, 

NMFS included these sharks on the 

prohibited species list in 1997. 

Additionally, as with the dusky sharks, 

a reduction in discards based on the 

sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS 

quotas and management actions taken in 

this rulemaking should afford additional 

protection for sand tiger sharks. 

Comment 7: NMFS should include 

landings by states, such as Louisiana 

and Alabama, against the Federal shark 

quota. 

Response: NMFS counts both Federal 

and state landings of sharks against the 

Federal shark quota since sharks in both 

state and Federal waters contribute to 

the stocks that are federally managed. 

This approach is consistent with that 

used by NMFS to manage other Federal 

fisheries such as reef fish and snapper 

grouper. 

Comment 8: NMFS should consider 

species-specific quotas. NMFS should 

begin with blacktip sharks, since an 

assessment was done for them in both 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40662 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. This is 

because of variation in life history 

parameters, different intrinsic rates of 

increase, and different catch and 

abundance data for all species listed in 

each complex. Managing sharks as a 

complex is inappropriate. 

Response: NMFS is moving towards 

species-specific management, including 

species-specific quotas. However, for 

some species, NMFS has only limited 

data which requires management to be 

based on species within a complex. 

Based on the latest stock assessment, 

NMFS has removed sandbar sharks from 

the LCS complex, resulting in a sandbar 

shark quota, and a non-sandbar LCS 

quota, comprised of blacktip, bull, 

smooth hammerhead, scalloped 

hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, 

lemon, nurse, silky, tiger, and spinner 

sharks. The sandbar shark assessment 

gave a specific TAC for sandbar sharks, 

which resulted in NMFS accounting for 

sandbar shark mortality in all fisheries 

(both commercial and recreational 

sectors) before establishing a base 

commercial quota of 116.6 mt dw. In 

order to monitor this quota, NMFS 

removed sandbar sharks from the LCS 

complex and set a separate commercial 

quota for this species. 

However, while separate blacktip 

shark assessments were conducted, 

NMFS has decided not to implement 

separate blacktip shark quotas because 

the shark fishery is a multi-species 

fishery. The majority of sharks 

harvested in the directed shark fishery, 

other than sandbar sharks, are blacktip 

sharks. For instance, 82-percent of 

sharks caught in the directed shark 

fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region are 

blacktip sharks (not including sandbar 

sharks). The next highest landings were 

for hammerhead sharks at 7-percent and 

bull sharks at 5-percent. The South 

Atlantic region had the same pattern 

with the highest percentage of landings, 

apart from sandbar sharks, for blacktip 

sharks at 72-percent followed by 

hammerhead sharks at 14-percent, and 

then bull sharks at 4-percent. Because 

NMFS did not have species-specific 

assessments on other species besides 

blacktip and sandbar sharks, and 

because the majority of the LCS catch, 

not including sandbar sharks, is blacktip 

sharks, NMFS created a non-sandbar 

LCS complex with its own quota. To 

account for differences in catch between 

the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic region, 

NMFS is implementing a regional Gulf 

of Mexico non-sandbar LCS quota and 

an Atlantic non-sandbar LCS quota. 

Comment 9: NMFS should split the 

sandbar quota between research and 

bycatch. This could be a ‘‘phased-in’’

quota system where 2⁄3 of the quota in 

the first year would be allocated toward 

incidental landings and 1⁄3 would be 

allocated toward research. 

Response: In establishing the base 

commercial quota of 116 mt dw, NMFS 

allocated approximately 42 mt dw to 

account for recreational harvest and 

dead discards. A further allocation of 1⁄3

of the base commercial quota for the 

research fishery in the first year would 

only result in 38.8 mt dw for research. 

In addition, due to overharvests in 2007 

(see Appendix C in the FEIS for more 

details), NMFS is reducing the base 

commercial sandbar shark quota to 87.9 

mt dw annually for five years. A 1⁄3

allocation of this reduced base 

commercial quota would only leave 29.3 

mt dw of sandbar quota available for 

research. One third of either the base 

annual quota or the adjusted five year 

quota would not provide enough trips or 

observations to produce statistically 

sound data on the several research 

questions NMFS intends to address, 

especially given that NMFS has already 

accounted for dead discards and 

recreational harvest in setting the base 

commercial quota. In addition, a 2⁄3

allocation of the sandbar quota would 

only allow fishermen (directed or 

incidental) to retain a few sandbar 

sharks (less than what was proposed 

under alternative suite 3, where all 

permit holders would have been 

allowed to retain sandbar sharks). Thus, 

splitting the quota into thirds would not 

provide benefits to the fishery or to the 

research needed for future stock 

assessments. However, as funds are 

available, NMFS would have scientific 

observers on vessels fishing outside the 

research fishery that would monitor 

discards of sandbar sharks. If large 

number of sandbar dead discards 

occurred in the fishery, resulting in 

mortality above the recommended TAC, 

NMFS would take management action, 

as necessary. Additionally, NMFS will 

monitor landings of sandbar shark by 

state fishermen and deduct those 

landings from the base commercial 

quota, as needed. 

Comment 10: NMFS should not use 

the maximum rebuilding time period 

(70 years) allowed under the law but 

should use a more precautionary 

approach. NMFS should not strive for 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for 

blacktip and sandbar sharks. The 

proposed sandbar shark quota of 116 

metric tons (mt) is too high to ensure 

recovery of this population and NMFS 

should consider adopting an even lower 

final number. 

Response: The 2005/2006 stock 

assessment for sandbar sharks discussed 

three rebuilding scenarios, including: a 

rebuilding timeframe if no fishing were 

allowed; a TAC corresponding to a 50- 

percent probability of rebuilding by 

2070; and a TAC corresponding to a 70- 

percent probability of rebuilding by 

2070. Under no fishing, the stock 

assessment estimated that sandbar 

sharks would rebuild in 38 years. Under 

the NS 1 guidelines, if a species requires 

more than 10 years to rebuild, even in 

the absence of fishing mortality, then 

the specified time period for rebuilding 

may be adjusted upward by one mean 

generation time. Thus, NMFS added a 

generation time (28 years) to the target 

year for rebuilding sandbar sharks. The 

target year is the number of years it 

would take to rebuild the species in the 

absence of fishing, or 38 years for 

sandbar sharks. NMFS determined that 

the rebuilding time that would be as 

short as possible for sandbar sharks 

would be 66 years, taking into account 

the status and biology of the species and 

severe economic consequences on 

fishing communities. This would allow 

sandbar sharks to rebuild by 2070 given 

a rebuilding start year of 2004, the last 

year of the time series of data used in 

the 2005/2006 sandbar shark stock 

assessment. Since sharks are caught in 

multiple fisheries, to meet the 

rebuilding timeframe under a no fishing 

scenario, NMFS would have to 

implement restrictions in multiple 

fisheries to eliminate mortality, such as 

entirely shutting down multiple 

fisheries to prevent bycatch. If NMFS 

were to shut down the shark fishery 

completely, such action would likely 

have severe economic impacts on the 

fishing community and it would likely 

result in difficulties for fisheries in 

which Councils recommend 

management measures as well as 

Commission-managed fisheries, which 

often catch sharks as bycatch. In 

addition, prohibiting all fishing for 

sharks would impact NMFS’ ability to 

do collect data for future management. 

The recommended TAC associated 

with a 50–percent probability of 

rebuilding by 2070 is 172.7 mt dw (or 

240 mt whole weight (ww)). However, 

given the life history of sharks including 

slow growth, late age of maturity, and 

relatively small litter sizes, as described 

in the 1999 Fishery Management Plan 

for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and 

Sharks (1999 FMP), a 50–percent 

probability of success is minimally 

acceptable for sharks. Thus, NMFS 

adopted the TAC corresponding to a 70– 

percent probability of rebuilding by 

2070, or 158.3 mt dw (220 mt ww). This 

timeframe is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NS 1 

guidelines at § 600.310, the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP (which 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40663 

includes the rebuilding requirements of 

the 1999 FMP), and the other national 

standards that require NMFS to 

consider, among other things, the 

economic and social impacts of the 

fishery. 

b. Discard Issues 

Comment 11: NMFS should consider 

sandbar shark discards outside the 

research fishery. NMFS should also be 

concerned with derby-style fishing with 

the reduced quotas and retention limits. 

Response: NMFS considered sandbar 

shark discards outside the shark 

research fishery when it established the 

base sandbar shark quota (see Table A.1 

in Appendix A of the Final EIS). In 

doing so, NMFS set a commercial 

sandbar shark quota that, in addition to 

considering discards in other fisheries 

outside the shark research fishery, 

should keep sandbar shark mortality 

below the recommended TAC of 158.3 

mt dw each year. In order to deter 

derby-style fishing outside the shark 

research fishery, NMFS reduced the trip 

limit for directed shark permit holders 

to 33 non-sandbar LCS per trip. This 

trip limit should allow the LCS fishery 

to stay open longer than it has in the 

past while also minimizing, to the 

extent practicable, regulatory discards 

and derby-style fishing. 

Comment 12: NMFS should 

acknowledge that dusky shark bycatch 

will be an issue both inside and outside 

the research fishery. Seventy percent of 

dusky sharks are dead at haulback. 

Response: Dusky sharks caught as 

bycatch under the new management 

measures would result in dead discards 

to the same extent as current levels. 

Currently, most of the dusky shark 

discards occur within the directed shark 

fishery (on average, 24.5 mt dw per 

year), with a total of 33.2 mt dw of 

dusky sharks discarded on average per 

year. Under the final action, there 

would no longer be a directed LCS 

fishery. For a limited number of trips, 

the few vessels that qualify for 

participation in the shark research 

fishery will be allowed to direct on LCS. 

Depending on the number of trips taken 

within the research fishery, NMFS 

estimates that yearly dusky shark 

discards could be between 0.5 mt dw 

(that would be caught during 64 trips 

associated with the adjusted sandbar 

shark quota) and 0.6 mt dw (that would 

be caught during 92 trips associated 

with the base sandbar shark quota), with 

a total of 9.1 mt dw of dusky shark 

discards across all fisheries. This is a 

73–percent reduction in dusky shark 

discards compared to the status quo. 

Comment 13: NMFS should evaluate 

if highgrading will be an issue outside 

the research fishery. 

Response: Under the final action, 

highgrading, or the discarding of 

smaller, less valuable animals and 

retaining only the most valuable 

animals to fill a retention limit, is 

expressly prohibited. However, because 

fishermen aim to have the highest 

profits per trip, highgrading can be an 

issue whenever trip limits are 

implemented. 

Based on the latest shark stock 

assessments, NMFS is implementing a 

reduced shark trip limit from 4,000 lb of 

LCS per trip to 33 non-sandbar LCS per 

trip for directed permit holders 

operating outside the research fishery. 

NMFS expects that this reduced trip 

limit (approximately one quarter of 

what a directed fisherman lands on a 

shark trip under the status quo) and the 

prohibition on the retention of sandbar 

sharks will result in fishermen with 

directed shark permits no longer 

targeting LCS. Additionally, this trip 

limit is higher than the average number 

of sharks shark fishermen currently 

retain when targeting other species (i.e., 

12 sharks from non-targeted trips). 

Thus, NMFS assumes that the reduced 

trip limit will allow fishermen with 

directed shark permits to keep all 

incidentally caught non-sandbar LCS as 

they target non-sharks species. Because 

fishermen will likely be allowed to keep 

all sharks caught when fishing for other 

species, the reduced trip limit should 

reduce the incentive to engage in 

highgrading. 

c. Species Complexes 

Comment 14: NMFS should 

reconsider the use of the term ‘‘nonsandbar LCS.’’ This title is awkward and 

might confuse some fishers. The use of 

‘‘LCS’’ or ‘‘LCS (other than sandbars)’’ is 

recommended following the same logic 

as when referring to ‘‘pelagic sharks’’

(which otherwise would be referred to 

as non-blue or porbeagle pelagic sharks.) 

Response: NMFS considered several 

names for the group of LCS that does 

not include sandbar sharks. NMFS felt 

keeping the title ‘‘LCS’’ for the new 

complex may be confusing with the 

‘‘old’’ LCS complex (i.e., the complex 

prior to the implementation of the 

amendment). NMFS chose ‘‘nonsandbar LCS’’ because it was the most 

explicit description of the new complex: 

the LCS complex with sandbar sharks 

removed. 

Comment 15: NMFS is taking 

sandbars out of the LCS complex. Where 

did NMFS get the authority to remove 

a given species from a complex? 

Response: NMFS has the authority 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 

manage all coastal sharks. As part of this 

authority, NMFS created the complexes 

in 1993 to aid in managing the fishery. 

Thus, NMFS may set species-specific 

quota as appropriate, given the best 

available science. Indeed, NMFS has 

often changed the specific species in 

each management unit starting with the 

creation of five prohibited species in 

1997. In this case, the sandbar shark 

assessment gave a specific TAC for 

sandbar sharks, which resulted in 

NMFS establishing a base commercial 

quota of 116.6 mt dw. In order to 

monitor this quota, NMFS is 

establishing a quota for sandbar sharks 

that is separate from the quota for the 

rest of the LCS complex. 

Comment 16: The Director of the 

North Carolina Division of Marine 

Fisheries stated that NMFS should place 

blacktip sharks in the small coastal 

shark (SCS) complex. 

Response: NMFS is not changing the 

composition of the SCS complex in this 

rulemaking. Rather, based on the TAC 

recommended by the sandbar shark 

stock assessment, NMFS is establishing 

separate quotas for sandbar sharks and 

the non-sandbar LCS. The non-sandbar 

LCS complex consists of blacktip, bull, 

smooth hammerhead, scalloped 

hammerhead, lemon, nurse, silky, tiger, 

and spinner sharks. Blacktip sharks are 

the species most commonly caught 

within this complex. In the 1993 FMP 

for Atlantic Sharks, blacktip sharks were 

placed within the LCS complex based 

on fishery dynamics. Blacktip sharks are 

more commonly caught with gear 

targeting LCS (i.e., BLL gear) rather than 

gear used to target SCS (i.e., gillnet 

gear). In addition, the blacktip shark 

stock assessments recommended that 

blacktip shark landings should not 

change or increase from historical catch 

levels. By placing blacktip sharks within 

the SCS complex, NMFS could either 

drastically reduce the blacktip shark 

regional quotas if the 454 mt dw SCS 

complex quota was not increased (i.e., 

the 454 mt dw quota would include the 

quota for blacktip sharks and SCS), or 

increase the SCS complex quota to 

include historical catch of blacktip 

sharks. Placing blacktip sharks within 

the SCS complex and increasing the 

overall SCS quota could result in 

increased catch levels of SCS. These 

catch levels may or may not be 

sustainable for the SCS complex. 

Therefore, at this time, NMFS is not 

placing blacktip sharks within the SCS 

complex. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40664 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

d. Over- and Underharvests 

Comment 17: NMFS received several 

comments regarding transferring quota. 

These include: NMFS should consider 

transferring unused quota to the next 

season; NMFS should not consider 

transferring underharvests to the next 

season even if species are not overfished 

or the status is unknown. This is 

because other bodies such as the IUCN 

have expressed concern as to some of 

these species; NMFS should subtract 

quota overages from the subsequent 

season’s quota and disallow carryover of 

underharvests to the next season for 

populations that are of unknown status, 

overfished, or experiencing overfishing. 

Response: Under the final action, 

NMFS will generally subtract 

overhavests that occurred during one 

fishing year from the next fishing year 

for each individual species or species 

group. Depending on the amount of 

overharvests, NMFS may decide to split 

the overharvests over several years to 

allow continuation of the shark research 

fishery and to minimize dead discards. 

In addition, NMFS will add 

underharvests up to 50-percent of the 

base quota to the next fishing year for 

species or species grouping in which the 

stock status of all species is other than 

unknown, overfished, or subject to 

overfishing. For all other species and 

species groups, underharvests will not 

be carried. Not applying underharvests 

should increase the likelihood that these 

stocks rebuild in a timelier manner. 

This approach is also used in other 

fisheries that NMFS manages, including 

bluefin tuna and swordfish. 

e. Shark Display and Research Quota 

Comment 18: NMFS received several 

comments in favor of the preferred 

management measures affecting display 

quotas under alternative suite 4. These 

comments included: NMFS should 

allocate 2 mt dw of sandbar sharks from 

the overall 60 mt ww display and shark 

research quota to public display and 

research under exempted fishing 

permits (EFPs); the 60 metric tons (mt 

ww) quota for display permits and 

research should be reduced if it has 

never been attained; NMFS should 

prohibit dusky sharks for public 

display; and, dusky sharks have no 

display value. 

Response: In order to stay within the 

TAC recommended by the sandbar stock 

assessment, NMFS is reducing the 

commercial sandbar shark quota, and 

restricting the number of sandbar sharks 

that can be collected under EFPs and 

Display Permits. The final action 

restricts the sandbar shark collection to 

1 mt dw for research under EFPs and 1 

mt dw for public display to ensure that 

the sandbar shark mortality stays below 

the 158.3 mt dw TAC and to ensure that 

the shark research fishery has sufficient 

quota to produce statistically sound 

data. The preferred allocations to the 

EFP and display quotas were based on 

the 2 mt dw average annual collection 

of sandbar sharks under EFPs, scientific 

research permits (SRPs), and display 

permits from 2000 to 2006. As such, 

NMFS does not anticipate that these 

restrictions will affect future sandbar 

shark collections under these types of 

permits. 

Due to the severity of the overfished 

and overfishing status of dusky sharks, 

the collection of dusky sharks for public 

display will be prohibited. Aquariums 

that currently have dusky sharks will 

not be allowed to replace them. In 

addition, NMFS will review the 

allocation of dusky sharks for research 

under EFPs on a case by case basis. This 

should allow for research under EFPs on 

dusky sharks to continue, as 

appropriate. 

Comment 19: NMFS received 

numerous comments stating that the 

existing research/display quotas for 

sharks should not be reduced because: 

the quota is already small and not 

expected to increase in the future; the 

EFP quota has never been exceeded; the 

collection of sandbar sharks for public 

display is not a significant contributing 

factor to the reported decline of this 

stock; there is a disproportionate 

amount of regulation on display permits 

compared to other permits for other 

fishermen; any reduction in quotas or 

restrictions on species, if scientifically 

warranted and if based on scientifically 

peer-reviewed stock assessments, 

should come entirely out of the 

commercial quotas which have not been 

historically adhered to, and where the 

animals are landed dead with zero 

conservation or educational value; the 

sandbar shark is one of only a handful 

of shark species that are exceptionally 

hardy and have historically adapted 

well to closed aquarium environments. 

Response: While the 60 mt ww (or 

43.2 mt ww) shark display and research 

quota is small compared to the current 

commercial 1,017 mt dw LCS quota, the 

final action does not change the overall 

display and research quota. The final 

action, however, does significantly 

reduce the commercial quota and 

prohibits most commercial fishermen 

from harvesting sandbar sharks. 

Additionally, the final action prohibits 

recreational retention of sandbar sharks. 

As described in the response to 

Comment 18 in this section, the 

quantity of sandbar and dusky sharks 

authorized for display and research 

(outside of the shark research fishery) is 

limited under the final action. For 

sandbar sharks, the amount is limited to 

what has been landed, on average, 

under various EFPs during the past six 

years. Therefore, no negative economic 

impacts are anticipated with the EFP 

allocation of sandbar sharks. EFPs and 

display permits will no longer be issued 

for the collection of dusky sharks. This 

regulation is consistent with the 

prohibition on the harvest of dusky 

sharks by commercial and recreational 

fishermen and, because of the 

overfished status and length of time for 

rebuilding, is appropriate for dusky 

sharks. 

Finally, because EFPs exempt 

fishermen from certain regulations that 

other fishermen must follow, NMFS will 

continue to issue EFPS, SRPs, and 

display permits only if the applicant has 

shown compliance with other relevant 

regulations regarding reporting, 

notifying enforcement, and tagging 

animals. 

Comment 20: NMFS should consider 

an exemption to allow for the live take 

of dusky sharks for public display. 

Aquariums need to work on the 

husbandry of these sharks. 

Response: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 18 in this section, 

due to the severity of the overfished and 

overfishing status of dusky sharks, 

dusky sharks will be prohibited for 

collection for public display. Moreover, 

dusky sharks do not do well in 

captivity. Currently, only 13 dusky 

sharks per year have been collected 

under EFPs. Under the final action, 

NMFS will review the allocation of 

dusky sharks for research under EFPs on 

a case by case basis. This should allow 

for research under EFPs on dusky sharks 

to continue, as appropriate. 

Comment 21: NMFS should explain 

how it will prohibit sandbar and dusky 

sharks for EFPs and display permits. 

Response: EFPs allow fishermen to 

harvest species otherwise prohibited by 

existing regulations. NMFS is not 

prohibiting the collection of sandbar 

sharks under the EFP program. Instead, 

1 mt dw for research under EFPs and 1 

mt dw for public display will be 

allocated to fishermen to ensure that the 

sandbar shark mortality stays below the 

158.3 mt dw TAC. However, due to the 

severity of the overfished and 

overfishing status of dusky sharks, 

dusky sharks will be prohibited for 

collection for public display because 

they do not do well in captivity. While 

NMFS cannot prohibit fishermen from 

incidentally catching dusky sharks, 

NMFS can prohibit their retention for 

public display or research under EFPs 

when necessary. NMFS reviews the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40665 

allocation of dusky and sandbar sharks 

under EFPs and Display Permits on a 

case-by-case basis. If research on dusky 

sharks is deemed scientifically 

necessary, even if it includes mortality, 

NMFS may issue the necessary EFPs. 

However, such permits must have 

scientific merit and the research 

conducted by scientific staff in order for 

the permit to be issued. As is currently 

done for EFPs and Display permits, 

NMFS will continue to monitor all 

sources of mortality as a result of EFPs, 

Display Permits, Scientific Research 

Permits, and Letters of 

Acknowledgments, and these data will 

be incorporated in future stock 

assessments. 

Comment 22: NMFS should provide 

more information on how they track 

landings under EFPs and what happens 

to HMS that are collected under EFPs. 

Response: NMFS requires persons 

who receive EFPs to report the number 

of total animals kept, discarded alive, 

and discarded dead under the EFP 

program. This information is published 

in the Federal Register every 

November/December in conjunction 

with NMFS’ request for comments and 

Notice of Intent to issue EFPs and 

related permits in the subsequent year. 

The information is also published in the 

annual SAFE Report and may be used 

in stock assessments, if appropriate. 

Permittees who do not provide this 

information are not issued a permit in 

the future until all required reporting 

from past permits was received. NMFS 

does not track what is done with the 

animals (e.g., if they are sold to 

aquariums) after they have been 

collected and landed by the original 

permittees. 

2. Porbeagle Sharks as Prohibited 

Comment 1: NMFS received several 

comments in support of prohibiting the 

harvest of porbeagle sharks including: 

NMFS should prohibit the harvest of 

porbeagle sharks because even seasoned 

fishermen misidentify porbeagle sharks 

as mako sharks; the prohibition on the 

possession of porbeagle sharks is long 

overdue; NMFS should prohibit the 

harvest of porbeagle sharks and 

implement stricter management 

measures that address porbeagle take, 

including bycatch; and NMFS should 

prohibit the possession of porbeagle 

sharks, however, if bycatch of porbeagle 

sharks is allowed, the rule will have 

little effect on the overall status of 

porbeagle sharks. 

Response: As a result of the 2005 

Canadian stock assessment for the North 

Atlantic porbeagle shark, NMFS has 

determined that porbeagle sharks are 

overfished, but overfishing is not 

occurring Under the final action, the 

commercial quota is 1.7 mt dw. NMFS 

estimates that commercial discards will 

be approximately 9.5 mt dw, and 

recreational catch, including landings in 

tournaments, will be approximately 0.1 

mt dw per year. This TAC of 11.3 mt dw 

should increase the likelihood that 

fishing mortality will remain low, 

allowing the stock to rebuild within 100 

years (see rebuilding plan in Chapter 1 

of the FEIS). While bycatch of porbeagle 

sharks will continue, the majority of 

porbeagle sharks caught currently are 

discarded alive. For instance, of an 

average of 723 porbeagle sharks that 

were discarded annually in the PLL 

fishery, only 161.3 were discarded dead 

whereas 561.6 were discarded alive. The 

final action is not expected to change 

this discard mortality rate. Therefore, 

dead discards should continue to be low 

and not negatively affect the stock. 

Comment 2: NMFS received several 

comments, including comments from 

the states of Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire, opposing any prohibition of 

porbeagle shark retention including: 

there is a small historical porbeagle 

shark catch in the United States that is 

not significantly contributing to the loss 

of the porbeagle shark. The U.S. 

porbeagle fishery has remained 

sustainable under current regulations; 

other countries, such as Canada, should 

be more responsible for rebuilding this 

stock as they contribute more towards 

Atlantic-wide fishing mortality; NMFS 

should pressure Canadians to reduce 

their porbeagle catch; porbeagle sharks 

are the only big game fish in the 

Northeast; and placing porbeagle sharks 

on the prohibited species list takes away 

33–percent of the potential catch in 

New England. 

Response: The final action to reduce 

the TAC for porbeagle sharks will cap 

U.S. fishing mortality at the current 

level. Given the low level of porbeagle 

catch in U.S. waters, capping mortality 

at the current U.S. fishing level, 

assuming Canada also continues to take 

action to conserve porbeagle sharks, 

should allow the porbeagle shark 

population to rebuild within 100 years 

(see rebuilding plan in Chapter 1 of the 

FEIS). Capping fishing levels should 

also discourage any future directed 

fishery on this species. 

Other countries that have a directed 

fishery for porbeagle sharks have 

reduced their porbeagle quotas. For 

instance, the Canadian porbeagle quota 

was cut by 80–percent in 1998. It was 

cut back even further in 2001 and again 

in 2006. The current Canadian quota is 

250 mt per year, 185 mt of which may 

be taken by the directed porbeagle shark 

fishery, with the rest of the quota being 

allocated for bycatch. In addition, 

according to the latest ICCAT 

Recommendation (07–06), all 

contracting parties are obligated to 

reduce mortality of porbeagle sharks in 

their directed porbeagle shark fisheries. 

NMFS may take additional management 

measures in the future, as necessary, if 

future stock assessments warrant such 

action. 

Comment 3: The Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 

requested establishing a 2 mt quota for 

porbeagle sharks to allow a limited 

harvest. Allowing a small harvest of 

porbeagle sharks would help the 

ASMFC set identical species groups 

while offering protection from 

overharvest. 

Response: NMFS is setting a reduced 

TAC for porbeagle sharks of 11.3 mt dw, 

of which 1.7 mt dw is allocated to 

commercial harvest. This cap on fishing 

mortality at its present level by 

commercial and recreational fishermen 

should prevent a directed fishery for 

this species from developing in the 

future. In addition, it is an 88–percent 

reduction in the current commercial 

quota of 92 mt dw, which will help 

ensure rebuilding within 100 years (see 

rebuilding plan in Chapter 1 of the 

FEIS). 

Comment 4: Does NMFS have any 

evidence that Canadian porbeagle 

sharks go into U.S. waters? Is NMFS 

aware if U.S. fishermen are catching 

these Canadian sharks? 

Response: Tagging data provide strong 

evidence that there are distinct 

porbeagle populations in the Northeast 

and Northwest Atlantic, and that the 

Northwest Atlantic stock is a separate 

population that undertakes extensive 

annual migrations between Canada and 

northeastern United States. Given these 

migrations, porbeagle sharks found in 

U.S. and Canadian waters are 

considered to be one stock that is shared 

by U.S. and Canadian fishermen. 

Comment 5: If porbeagle sharks are 

overfished but overfishing is not 

occurring, what would the rebuilding 

timeframe be if the fishery was to 

continue at the current level? 

Response: Since the 2005 Canadian 

stock assessment on which NMFS based 

its analysis included U.S. commercial 

landings of porbeagle sharks, capping 

fishing mortality at its current level 

should allow the species to rebuild 

within 100 years (see rebuilding plan in 

Chapter 1 of the FEIS). 

Comment 6: Will NMFS propose 

similar porbeagle shark prohibition 

measures at the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) meeting this 

year? Since most landings for porbeagle 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40666 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

occur outside the United States, 

international cooperation is needed to 

help manage this species. 

Response: Adopted at the 2007 ICCAT 

annual meeting in Turkey, ICCAT 

Recommendation (07–06) obligates all 

Contracting Parties to take appropriate 

measures to reduce fishing mortality in 

fisheries targeting porbeagle sharks. 

While the United States does not have 

a directed porbeagle shark fishery, and 

U.S. commercial and recreational 

landings are small (1.8 mt dw), this 

ICCAT measure should help reduce 

mortality of porbeagle sharks that are 

targeted by other countries. The United 

States is also implementing a reduced 

TAC of 11.3 mt dw, which is below the 

current commercial quota of 92 mt dw 

per year for porbeagle sharks, and 

encouraging the live release of porbeagle 

sharks. This final action should prevent 

a directed fishery from developing for 

porbeagle sharks in U.S. waters in the 

future. 

Comment 7: NMFS underestimated 

the number of porbeagle sharks being 

caught. This is because the Marine 

Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey 

(MRFSS) data is flawed. Porbeagle 

sharks are not present in New England 

waters when MRFSS is collecting their 

surveys in this area. 

Response: NMFS currently is working 

on a marine recreational information 

program to improve data collection from 

the recreational sector. Due to the rarity 

of porbeagle shark landings, it is 

difficult to estimate porbeagle landings 

with survey data, which only sample a 

portion of the recreational fishing fleet 

and then extrapolate the number of fish 

caught based on the estimated number 

of anglers. Therefore, NMFS may 

consider census data (i.e., a trip ticket 

or a call-in system where all porbeagle 

shark landings are counted) in the 

future to better estimate recreational 

porbeagle landings. 

Comment 8: The Large Pelagic Survey 

(LPS) started out as a tuna survey, and 

the LPS survey happens during the 

middle of summer. There is no LPS 

survey taking place when porbeagle 

sharks are present, so NMFS’ data is 

skewed. 

Response: The LPS survey was 

designed to capture recreational 

landings in the Northeast during the 

time period when most fishing takes 

place north of Virginia. Currently, the 

survey consists of randomly selected 

weekly telephone and dockside 

intercept interviews, with mandatory 

participation from June 1 through 

October 31 from Virginia to New York. 

The survey is conducted July 31 through 

October 31 for states north of New York. 

Past phone surveys indicated this is 

when most of the fishing effort occurs 

in this region. As mentioned in the 

response to Comment 7 in this section, 

due to the rarity of porbeagle shark 

landings, it is difficult to estimate 

porbeagle landings with survey data. 

Therefore, NMFS may consider census 

data (i.e., trip ticket or a call-in system 

where all porbeagle sharks landed are 

counted) in the future to better estimate 

recreational porbeagle landings. 

Comment 9: NMFS should have 

recreational fishermen report their 

porbeagle shark landings. 

Response: NMFS currently does not 

require recreational fishermen to report 

shark landings. NMFS collects data on 

recreational fishing catch and effort 

through the LPS and the MRFSS, which 

is considered the best available science 

for determining recreational landings. 

These surveys collect data on fishing 

effort and catch of highly migratory 

species. In addition, randomly selected 

fishing tournaments are an important 

component of HMS recreational 

fisheries data. However, because of the 

rarity of porbeagle shark landings, in 

general, NMFS may not be capturing all 

of the porbeagle sharks landed 

recreationally through these types of 

surveys. Thus, NMFS is currently 

working on ways to gather more data on 

recreational landings of porbeagle 

sharks. 

3. Retention Limits 

Comment 1: The proposed 22 nonsandbar LCS retention limit is not 

economically feasible and is the 

equivalent of shutting down the fishery; 

NMFS should consider a trip limit of 0 

to 75 non-sandbar LCS to maintain 

economic viability. 

Response: NMFS assessed and 

analyzed the economic impacts of the 

proposed retention limits, which are 

summarized in the FRFA and Chapter 8 

of the FEIS. The proposed 22 nonsandbar shark LCS retention limit was 

calculated by dividing the available 

quota over average annual number of 

trips that landed non-sandbar LCS by 

directed and incidental permit holders 

as reported in the Coastal Fisheries 

logbook and the HMS logbooks. At the 

time of the Draft EIS, the available nonsandbar LCS quota was determined by 

the average annual landings reported in 

the HMS and Coastal Fisheries logbooks 

from 2003 to 2005. However, during the 

comment period, the Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) 

recommended using HMS shark dealer 

reports (i.e., southeast and northeast 

general canvass and SEFSC quota 

monitoring databases) to calculate 

historical landings of non-sandbar LCS 

since the stock assessments were, in 

part, based on landings reported by 

HMS shark dealer reports. Therefore, in 

the FEIS, NMFS used the shark dealer 

reports to calculate the non-sandbar LCS 

base quota. Because the HMS shark 

dealer reports include landings by both 

state and Federal shark fishermen, 

whereas logbook data includes landings 

by only federally-permitted shark 

fishermen, using dealer reports results 

in a higher non-sandbar LCS base quota. 

In this final action, NMFS is using a 

higher base quota. After accounting for 

overharvests that occurred in 2007 (see 

Appendix C of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement), NMFS is revising the 

retention limits based on the larger nonsandbar LCS quota. The final measures 

implement a 33 non-sandbar LCS trip 

limit for directed permit holders and a 

three non-sandbar LCS trip limit for 

incidental permit holders. While the 

trip limit for directed permit holder has 

increased from what was proposed in 

the Draft EIS, NMFS assumes that 

fishermen with directed shark permits 

will no longer target non-sandbar LCS 

outside the research fishery. Rather, a 33 

non-sandbar LCS trip limit allows 

fishermen to keep non-sandbar LCS 

while they target other species, such as 

reef fish and snapper-grouper. Based on 

BLL observer program data from 2005 to 

2007, fishermen with directed shark 

permits fishing for snapper/grouper 

kept, on average, 12 sharks per trip. 

Thus, this trip limit should help in 

preventing excess discards. However, 

this retention limit will be too low to 

create an incentive for fishermen to 

target non-sandbar LCS. 

NMFS is aware that the revised 

retention limit of 33 non sandbar sharks 

per vessel/trip is a significant reduction 

from the current 4,000 lb dw LCS 

retention limit for directed permit 

holders. These measures are necessary, 

however, to rebuild overfished stocks, 

reduce bycatch, and end overfishing 

consistent with NMFS’s obligations 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Comment 2: NMFS should consider a 

per day limit in lieu of an individual 

trip limit. NMFS could reduce the limit 

to something like 2,000 lb non-sandbar 

LCS per day. This would allow a larger 

amount to be harvested in a single trip, 

making it more profitable for the 

fishermen. A day limit would also keep 

quota available for longer throughout 

the year. 

Response: NMFS has not considered a 

per day trip limit because of the 

difficulty in determining how NMFS 

would monitor what a vessel harvests 

within a 24 hour period during a 

multiday trip. Currently the shark 

fishery is managed on a per trip basis, 

as are most of the HMS fisheries. While 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40667 

a higher per day limit may allow for a 

larger single trip, which may reduce 

discards, it would be difficult for NMFS 

to monitor when a vessel left and 

returned to port and whether or not this 

was done multiple times within 24 

hours, especially if vessels visited 

several ports and were not required to 

possess vessel monitoring systems 

(VMS). A per trip limit is easier to 

enforce; no matter what port a vessel 

returns to, it would be held to the same 

trip limit. While a per day limit may 

reduce the number of trips and elongate 

the season based on how gillnet and 

BLL trips targeting non-shark species 

typically fish, the trip limits in the final 

action were devised in such a way to 

keep the non-sandbar LCS season open 

longer than they have been in the past. 

NMFS estimates that under the nonsandbar trip limit in this final action, 

the fishery should remain open the 

entire year. Given the reduced trip 

limits to accommodate the reduced 

shark quotas, NMFS believes that 

dividing the available quota across the 

historical fishing effort should help the 

shark fisheries stay open longer. In 

addition, since directed shark permit 

holders will presumably no longer target 

non-sandbar LCS based on those 

reduced trip limits and the prohibition 

on retention of sandbar sharks outside 

the research fishery, the non-sandbar 

LCS fishery will likely be incidental in 

nature where non-sandbar LCS are 

landed while fishermen target other 

species throughout the year. 

Comment 3: NMFS should propose a 

4,000 lb level per year for directed 

permit holders and grant the least 

productive vessels an incidental permit. 

Response: Based on the available 

quota (see Appendix C in the FEIS for 

more details), NMFS is setting a nonsandbar LCS trip limit of 33 nonsandbar LCS for directed shark permit 

holders (approximately 1,000 lb dw per 

trip of non-sandbar LCS); incidental 

permit holders would be allowed 3 nonsandbar LCS per trip. If fishing effort 

were to stay the same as the average 

level of effort from 2003-2005, then 

NMFS expects the shark fishing season 

to stay open for the entire fishing year 

with these trip limits. NMFS has chosen 

a trip limit that would utilize the entire 

non-sandbar LCS quotas outside the 

research fishery, assuming fishing effort 

remains at the average level from 2003- 

2005. A 4,000 lb dw limit per year for 

non-sandbar LCS would be 

approximately four trips per year for 

directed fishermen. At this time, NMFS 

feels that such a retention limit would 

be overly restrictive; however, if NMFS 

finds that the 33 non-sandbar LCS per 

trip for directed fishermen does not 

sufficiently rebuild the overfished stock 

of sandbar sharks or prevent 

overfishing, then trip limits can be 

adjusted, as appropriate. Fishermen 

selected to participate in the shark 

research fishery would be afforded 

higher trip limits consistent with 

research objectives and would be 

allowed to land all shark species, except 

prohibited sharks. 

In order for NMFS to change retention 

limits for individual vessels based on 

their past landing history, NMFS would 

likely consider an IFQ or LAPP. 

However, as explained in response to 

Comment 2 under ‘‘Quotas’’ above and 

in Chapter 1, it would take NMFS 

several years to implement an ITQ 

system. Under the current timeline 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for 

establishing a plan amendment to end 

overfishing, NMFS has insufficient time 

to establish an IFQ or LAPP for sharks 

at this time. However, NMFS could 

consider developing an IFQ or LAPP for 

sharks as well as other highly migratory 

species in the future. 

Comment 4: NMFS should carve out 

a retention limit specific to existing 

gillnetters. Gillnetters are being 

penalized by the preferred retention 

limit because they catch very few 

sandbar and dusky sharks. 

Response: NMFS believes that revised 

quotas and retention limits for nonsandbar LCS that apply to all gear types 

are more appropriate. These revised 

retention limits include a higher 

retention limit for directed shark permit 

holders compared to incidental shark 

permit holders. While sandbar and 

dusky sharks may be less likely to be 

caught in gillnet gear compared to BLL 

gear, setting separate gillnet retention 

limits was not considered as a part of 

this rulemaking mainly because NMFS 

has serious concerns regarding 

interaction rates with marine mammals 

and protected resources with gillnets. 

Given these interactions set forth in the 

following paragraph, NMFS believes it 

is inappropriate to implement measures 

that might result in increased fishing 

effort with this gear type. For example, 

setting different trip limits for gillnet 

gear could result in displaced BLL 

fishermen moving to the gillnet fishery. 

The five year incidental take 

statement (ITS) for the drift gillnet 

fishery in the 2003 Biological Opinion 

(BiOp) was 10 loggerhead sea turtles 

(with 1 mortality), 22 leatherback sea 

turtles (with 3 mortalities) and 1 

smalltooth sawfish (with zero 

mortalities). The ITS was specific to 

drift gillnet gear as strikenet gear had 

not interacted with protected species, at 

that time, and sink nets were not 

considered to be part of the shark gillnet 

fishery. However from 2003 to 2007 

(2003 being the start of the ITS period), 

vessels with shark permits using drift, 

sink, and strike gillnets interacted with 

a total of 13 loggerhead sea turtles (3 of 

which died or were unresponsive when 

discarded), 1 leatherback sea turtle and 

2 bottlenose dolphins (1 of which died). 

In addition, in January 2006, an Atlantic 

right whale calf was caught and died in 

gillnet gear off the northeast coast of 

Florida. Therefore, NMFS is not 

establishing a higher specific gillnet 

retention limit at this time. 

Comment 5: NMFS should consider 

capping the number of vessels that can 

deploy gillnets for sharks. 

Response: There are currently only 4 

to 6 sink and strike gillnetting vessels 

combined that target sharks (Carlson 

and Bethea, 2007). Given the reduction 

in trip limits as a result of this 

rulemaking, and restrictions and 

regulations under the Atlantic Right 

Whale Take Reduction Plan for this 

gear, NMFS does not believe there 

would be a significant increase in shark 

gillnet fishing in the future. 

Comment 6: NMFS should lower the 

incidental catch limit for non-sandbar 

LCS to be more in line with the current 

average (3 non-sandbar LCS/vessel/trip); 

NMFS should not decrease the directed 

permit holder retention limits by 30–

percent while increasing the incidental 

retention limit by more than seven 

times; NMFS should provide better 

justification for raising the trip limits for 

incidental permit holders; the proposed 

retention limit increase for incidental 

permit holders could increase fishing 

effort and bycatch; NMFS should 

consider restricting incidental take of 

non-sandbar LCS. 

Response: In the final action, NMFS 

establishes retention limits of 33 nonsandbar LCS per trip for directed permit 

holders and 3 non-sandbar LCS per trip 

for incidental permit holders. NMFS 

initially proposed retention limits of 22 

non-sandbar LCS per trip for both 

directed and incidental permit holders 

because NMFS considers the future nonsandbar shark fishery outside the shark 

research fishery as mainly incidental in 

nature (i.e., fishermen would not target 

non-sandbar LCS based on the low 

retention limits). Under the proposed 

scenario, incidental permit holders 

could have experienced a net positive 

economic benefit, given the retention 

limit of 22 non-sandbar LCS trip limit 

was more than the average of 3 nonsandbar LCS per trip that they currently 

retain. Such an increase in trip limits for 

incidental permit holders could have 

resulted in increased fishing pressure on 

sharks by incidental permit holders. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40668 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Based on public comment and to 

acknowledge differences among 

directed and incidental permit holders 

(e.g., on average, directed permit 

holders discard more sandbar and dusky 

sharks (8.1 mt dw and 25.7 mt dw per 

year, respectively) than incidental 

permit holders (1.5 mt dw and 3.8 mt 

dw per year, respectively)), NMFS’ final 

action is to set separate retention limits 

based on permit type. Directed permit 

holders will be allowed a higher 

retention limit than incidental permit 

holders. This affords directed permit 

holders, who may have paid more for 

their directed shark permit and who 

presumably rely on shark products for a 

larger part of their income, a higher 

retention limit than if all permit holders 

had the same retention limit. 

Comment 7: NMFS should clarify 

how a retention limit based on the 

number of sharks per trip would work. 

What happens if you get 100 sharks on 

a line? Under these new regulations, one 

will have to make multiple trips to be 

legal. 

Response: Under current regulations, 

NMFS has a directed LCS trip limit of 

4,000 lb dw. When fishermen exceeded 

this trip limit on a given set, they would 

often cut their gear and leave it while 

they returned to port to offload their 

legal trip limit. Once they had 

offloaded, they would return to retrieve 

the rest of their gear and catch. The 

same principle applies for this final 

action. However, due to the reduction in 

the retention limit and the prohibition 

on the harvest of sandbar sharks, NMFS 

assumes that fishermen with directed 

shark permits would no longer target 

non-sandbar LCS as they have in the 

past. Rather, fishermen would keep nonsandbar LCS only while they target 

other species, such as reef fish and 

snapper-grouper. The trip limit in this 

final action of 33 non-sandbar LCS for 

directed shark permits should minimize 

dead discards of sharks that fishermen 

catch while in pursuit of other species. 

Comment 8: NMFS should have 

proposed different retention trip limits 

for different species in different regions 

because there are more sandbars 

available in the Atlantic and more 

blacktip sharks available in the Gulf of 

Mexico; NMFS should split trip limits 

by state given the tendency of different 

areas to catch sandbar or dusky sharks; 

NMFS should consider the fact that 

Louisiana fishermen catch mostly 

blacktip sharks and no sandbar or dusky 

sharks and, therefore, should have a 

larger retention trip limit. 

Response: Based on public comment, 

NMFS analyzed regional quotas and 

retention limits for two regions: the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. As 

a result, NMFS is implementing regional 

quotas based on the results of the 

blacktip shark assessment, overharvests 

that occurred in 2007 (for more details, 

see Appendix C), and the fact that the 

ASMFC interstate shark management 

plan will implement measures in state 

waters of the Atlantic. Regional quotas 

allow for a higher non-sandbar LCS 

quota in the Gulf of Mexico region, 

which is comprised of a healthy stock 

of blacktip sharks. Regional quotas also 

allow for a lower non-sandbar LCS 

quota in the Atlantic region where the 

stock status of blacktip sharks is 

unknown and the majority of dusky 

sharks are caught. 

However, while the final action sets 

regional quotas for non-sandbar LCS, 

NMFS is not implementing regional 

non-sandbar LCS retention limits. 

Instead, the same retention limit for 

non-sandbar LCS would apply in the 

Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico regions. 

NMFS believes that a single retention 

limit, regardless of region, will help 

with enforcement and be less confusing 

for fishermen. For example, with one 

retention limit, fishermen fishing near 

the Florida Keys could move between 

the two regions on one trip. If there 

were two different retention limits, then 

fishermen would need to stay in one 

area per trip or risk landing a higher trip 

limit in the wrong region. Finally, while 

the analyses for setting these retention 

limits used historical fishing effort as a 

proxy for determining the retention 

limit, it is uncertain how future effort 

would be allocated among regions, or 

even states. This added uncertainty 

makes it difficult to determine a regionspecific or state-specific retention limit, 

given the other management measures 

that are changing as a result of this final 

action. 

Comment 9: NMFS should consider 

having a set-aside quota for the 

incidental fishermen so that they can 

still retain sharks when the directed 

fishery is closed. 

Response: As a result of the final 

actions in this rule, NMFS is assuming 

that fishermen with directed shark 

permits will no longer target nonsandbar LCS. Rather, fishermen will 

likely keep sharks only while they target 

other species such as reef fish and 

snapper-grouper. As such, the nonsandbar LCS fishery would be 

incidental in nature and non-sandbar 

LCS will likely be landed only 

incidental to the non-shark species that 

the fishermen would target throughout 

the year. Given the reduced trip limits 

for non-sandbar LCS, NMFS believes 

that the shark fishery will remain open 

for longer periods than in the past, 

possibly the entire year. Given the 

analyses that indicate the fishery will be 

open most of the time and the change 

in status of the fishery, NMFS believes 

that an incidental set aside is not 

needed at this time. 

Comment 10: NMFS should consider 

a trip limit that is not based on weight 

since most fishermen do not have scales 

on their vessels. 

Response: Under the final action, 

NMFS is basing the trip limits on the 

number of sharks per trip for both 

directed and incidental permit holders. 

Comment 11: If 7 out of 10 LCS 

landed are sandbar sharks, as NMFS 

claims, and NMFS has a 500+ mt dw 

non-sandbar LCS quota, then NMFS’

discard calculations are flawed. A 500+ 

mt dw non-sandbar LCS quota would 

result in 3,500 mt of sandbars being 

discarded. 

Response: The catch composition 

described above would only be realized 

if 1) fishermen were directing effort on 

sharks, and 2) there was a 4,000 lb dw 

trip limit. This catch composition, 

which was based on information from 

NMFS BLL observer reports, was used 

to estimate the number of trips that the 

shark research fishery could take to 

harvest the available sandbar shark 

quota, assuming there was a 4,000 lb dw 

LCS trip limit within the research 

fishery. 

However, for trips outside the 

research fishery, sandbar sharks would 

be prohibited and there would be 

reduced non-sandbar LCS trip limits. 

Therefore, NMFS assumes that directed 

shark permit holders would no longer 

make trips targeting non-sandbar LCS 

because of the significant reduction in 

retention limits and the fact that 

sandbar sharks could not be retained, 

therefore, the catch composition and 

subsequent sandbar discards described 

in the comment above would not apply 

to trips occurring outside the research 

fishery. Given this assumption, and 

based on the best available science from 

logbook, dealer reports, and observer 

program data, NMFS estimates that 

incidental sandbar shark mortality 

outside the research fishery would be 

approximately 40 mt dw. This estimate 

was determined by evaluating logbook 

data and observer reports to estimate 

sandbar shark discards from pelagic 

longline (PLL) gear (4.3 mt dw), discards 

by recreational fishermen (27 mt dw), 

discards within the shark research 

fishery (0.3 mt dw), sandbar sharks 

discarded by fishermen without HMS 

permits (6.3 mt dw), and sandbar sharks 

that used to be landed by incidental 

fishermen (2.3 mt dw). 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40669 

4. Fins On Requirement 

Comment 1: NMFS received several 

comments in support of a ban on shark 

finning as well as support for the 

proposal to land sharks with their fins 

attached. Commenters believe that shark 

identification is hampered by fin 

removal, enforcement is made easier if 

sharks are landed with fins attached, 

that the quality of data collected would 

improve, which is critical to improving 

the sustainability of shark stocks, and 

that technical difficulties of landing 

sharks whole could be alleviated with 

input from fishery experts and NOAA 

staff. A commenter also stated that 

NMFS should implement this measure 

promptly in the Atlantic while also 

taking steps to ensure a similar measure 

is implemented in the U.S. Pacific 

waters. 

Response: On December 21, 2000, the 

Shark Finning Prohibition Act (Public 

Law 105–557) (SFPA) was signed into 

law. The SFPA amended the MagnusonStevens Act section 307(1)(P), making it 

unlawful for any person ‘‘(i) to remove 

any of the fins of a shark (including the 

tail) and discard the carcass of the shark 

at sea; (ii) to have custody, control or 

possession of any such fin aboard a 

fishing vessel without the 

corresponding carcass; or (iii) to land 

any such fin without the corresponding 

carcass.’’ On February 11, 2002 (67 FR 

6194), NMFS published a final rule that 

established regulations which, among 

other things, prohibit any person from 

engaging or attempting to engage in 

shark finning; possessing shark fins 

without the corresponding carcasses 

while on board a U.S. fishing vessel; 

and landing shark fins without the 

corresponding carcasses. In this 

Amendment, NMFS is selecting an 

alternative that will require fishermen to 

land sharks with their fins naturally 

attached. This requirement will improve 

enforcement, species identification, data 

quality for future stock assessments, and 

further prevent the practice of shark 

finning. In the U.S. Pacific Ocean, three 

Regional Fishery Management Councils 

recommend shark management 

measures to NMFS: the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, and the 

Western Pacific Management Council. 

The Councils may consider 

recommending amendments to fishery 

management plans to include measures 

to land sharks with fins attached in the 

U.S. waters of the Pacific Ocean. 

Comment 2: NMFS received several 

comments in opposition to landing 

sharks with fins attached stating that 

this requirement would result in large 

amounts of waste at the dock, that the 

market has grown accustomed to 

receiving sharks in log form, that it will 

be more difficult for law abiding 

fishermen to comply with the law, and 

it will do nothing for those intent on 

breaking the law who may still bring 

only fins to the docks. 

Response: While this requirement will 

change current fishing practices, NMFS 

does not believe that the requirement to 

land sharks with fins attached is overly 

burdensome for the following reasons. 

The requirement to land sharks with 

fins attached will allow fishermen to 

leave the fins attached by at least a 

small piece of skin so that the fins could 

be folded against the carcass and the 

shark packed efficiently on ice while at 

sea. Shark fins could then be quickly 

removed at the dock without having to 

thaw the shark. Sharks may be 

eviscerated, bled, and the head removed 

from the carcass at sea. These measures 

should prevent excessive amounts of 

waste at the dock, since dressing (except 

removing the fins) the shark may be 

performed while at sea. While this will 

result in some change to the way in 

which fishermen process sharks at sea, 

because the fins may be removed 

quickly after the shark has been landed, 

NMFS expects that the market will 

continue to receive sharks in their log 

form. Alternatively, the dealers may 

decide to accept shark carcasses with 

the fins still attached. No person aboard 

a vessel with a shark permit would be 

allowed to possess shark fins without 

the fins being attached to the 

corresponding carcass until after the 

shark has been landed. Individuals that 

do not have a shark permit or who land 

shark fins detached from the 

corresponding carcass will be in 

violation of the regulations and subject 

to enforcement action. 

Comment 3: NMFS received several 

comments regarding the 5–percent fins 

to carcass ratio stating that 1) the ratio 

is wrong and NMFS needs to collect 

data to re-examine the ratio because it 

is different for all species, 2) NMFS 

should urge Congress to revise the fin to 

carcass ratio in the SFPA, 3) making 

fishermen land sharks with fins 

attached could still lead to a violation 

of the 5–percent ratio, and 4) fishermen 

are unsure of which weight to record in 

their logbook if the 5–percent ratio 

remains in effect and sharks are landed 

with fins attached. 

Response: NMFS first implemented 

the 5-percent fin-to-carcass ratio in the 

1993 Shark FMP. This ratio was based 

on research that indicated that the 

average ratio of fin weight to dressed 

weight of the carcass was 3.6 percent, 

and the sandbar fin ratio was 5.1 

percent. In December 2000, the SFPA 

was signed into law. The SFPA 

established a rebuttable presumption 

that any shark fins landed from a fishing 

vessel or found on board a fishing vessel 

were taken, held, or landed in violation 

of the shark finning ban if the total 

weight of shark fins landed or found on 

board exceeded 5-percent of the total 

weight of shark carcasses landed or 

found on board. This management 

measure was implemented by NMFS 

through a final rule released in February 

2002. NMFS may conduct additional 

research on the fin-to-carcass ratio in 

the shark research fishery, though any 

changes to the 5-percent ratio will have 

to be modified by Congressional action. 

In order to help fishermen document 

that sharks were landed with their fins 

attached, NMFS intends to modify the 

dealer weigh-out slips so that dealers 

may clearly document that the sharks 

were landed with fins attached. 

Consistent with the regulations at 

§ 635.30(c)(3), a person that has been 

issued a Federal shark LAP and who 

lands shark in an Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico, or Caribbean coastal port must 

have all fins and carcasses weighed and 

recorded on the weigh-out slips 

specified in § 635.5(a)(2) and in 

accordance with regulations at part 600, 

subpart N. Fishermen may either record 

the weight of the whole shark landed or 

they may record carcass and fin weights 

separately. Dealers must report the 

dressed carcass weight separately from 

the fin weight. 

Comment 4: NMFS received several 

comments, including one from the State 

of Florida, that NMFS should 

recalculate the conversion factor 

between dressed weight and whole 

weight of a shark since more of the 

shark is going to be landed. 

Response: The 1.39 conversion factor 

from dressed weight to whole weight is 

used to convert the dressed (gutted) 

weight of a shark, (the weight of the 

shark carcass in a log form with fins 

removed) to a whole weight. NMFS will 

continue to monitor shark quotas in 

dressed weight (i.e., carcass in log form 

with fins removed) and will use shark 

landings recorded via dealer reports to 

monitor the quota outside the shark 

research fishery. Therefore, the 

conversion factor should not need to be 

recalculated since the definition of 

dressed weight would still constitute a 

shark log with fins removed. Currently, 

dealers record the fin weights and 

dressed weight of the shark carcasses 

separately on their dealer reporting 

forms; in this rule, NMFS clarifies this 

reporting requirement. However, NMFS 

will monitor the situation and may 

change the conversion factor if 

appropriate. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40670 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 5: NMFS received several 

comments stating that NMFS should 

allow fishermen to remove just one 

pectoral fin, remove all fins except the 

pectoral fins, allow the removal of fins 

from species in the SCS complex, and 

allow vessels operating in the shark 

research fishery to remove the fins since 

those vessels would have 100–percent 

observer coverage. NMFS also received 

several comments from the State of 

Florida that NMFS should allow 

fishermen to remove the tail of the shark 

at sea and that NMFS should provide 

fishermen with a diagram depicting the 

proper way to clean and land sharks 

with fins attached. 

Response: The provision to land 

sharks with their fins attached allows 

fishermen to bleed, eviscerate, and 

remove the head at sea while cutting the 

fins almost all the way off so that the 

fins can be folded and the shark can be 

packed on ice. Authorizing the removal 

of certain fins or the fins of a specific 

species, or within a species complex, or 

from vessels within the research fishery 

could create additional enforcement 

problems and complicate compliance. 

Therefore, NMFS is requiring that all 

fins remain attached to the carcass 

through landing for all vessels. Because 

there are potentially many ways that the 

sharks may be dressed while leaving the 

fins attached, NMFS does not believe it 

is appropriate to provide specific 

instructions on how to dress sharks 

because more than one method may be 

used. NMFS only requires that sharks be 

landed with their fins naturally 

attached. Fishermen are allowed the 

flexibility to dress the shark and tailor 

the method to their specific operation or 

dealer requirements, providing they 

land all sharks with their fins naturally 

attached. 

Comment 6: NMFS received several 

comments regarding the potential food 

safety or Hazardous Analysis of Critical 

Control Point (HACCP) concerns if 

shark fins cannot be removed until the 

shark is landed because it may be 

difficult to keep the core temperature of 

the shark at 40 degrees in 90 degree 

heat. The state of Florida commented 

that NMFS should test shark meat 

quality to determine if there is a 

decrease in quality as a result of 

regulatory actions. 

Response: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) published 

regulations (December 18, 1995; 60 FR 

65092) mandating the application of the 

HACCP principles to ensure the safe 

and sanitary processing of seafood 

products. Although these regulations do 

not apply to fishing vessels or 

transporters, the processors of domestic 

seafood must comply with the 

regulations as it applies to incoming 

product. Dealers should consult the 

FDA Center for Food Safety and 

Applied Nutrition Fish and Fisheries 

Products Hazards and Controls 

Guidance for guidance on FDA 

regulations. The provision to land 

sharks with their fins attached allows 

fishermen to bleed, eviscerate, and 

remove the head at sea while cutting the 

fins almost all the way off so that the 

fins can be folded and the shark can be 

packed on ice. Because the sharks may 

be dressed and the fins cut almost all 

the way off the shark at sea before it is 

packed on ice, the shark should not 

have to be thawed to completely remove 

the fins once the shark is landed. In 

addition, reduced retention limits for 

non-sandbar LCS should reduce the 

number of sharks that are landed per 

trip, therefore decreasing the amount of 

processing time at the dock. NMFS 

might conduct tests through the shark 

research fishery to see if the new fins on 

requirement affect fish meat quality. 

However, the results of these tests 

would be limited in use as the higher 

retention limits in the shark research 

fishery could increase processing times 

and therefore lower meat quality. 

Comment 7: NMFS received several 

comments regarding international 

cooperation and imports including, 1) 

NMFS should set a firm shark 

conservation precedent for the 

international community, 2) NMFS 

should not get too far out in front of the 

international community, and 3) the 

United States should ban imports of 

shark fins from countries that do not 

prohibit shark finning. 

Response: The United States has 

taken an active role in promoting 

improved international shark 

conservation and management measures 

in international fora such as Regional 

Fisheries Management Organizations 

(including ICCAT), the United Nations 

General Assembly, the Convention on 

International Trade of Endangered 

Species (CITES), and the Convention on 

Migratory Species. Consistent with the 

United Nations Food and Agricultural 

Organizations’ International Plan of 

Action for sharks, the United States 

completed and implemented the 

National Plan of Action (NPOA) for 

sharks in February 2001. The NPOA 

calls for data collection; assessment of 

elasmobranch stocks; development of 

management measures, where 

appropriate; research and development 

of mitigation measures to reduce shark 

bycatch; and outreach and education. 

The requirement to land sharks from the 

U.S. Atlantic Ocean with their fins 

attached should help raise awareness in 

the international arena of enforcement 

issues associated with shark finning 

bans and the 5–percent fin-to-carcass 

ratio. NMFS published a proposed rule 

on April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18473), that 

would amend the International Trade 

Permit (ITP) Program to require shark 

fin importers, exporters, and reexporters (shark fin traders) to obtain an 

ITP consistent with ICCAT 

recommendations. This requirement 

would provide needed information on 

shark fin trade participation and would 

provide NMFS enforcement access to 

trade records, since the export of shark 

fins is one of the primary economic 

incentives for much of the U.S. Atlantic 

shark fishery. 

5. Time Area Closures 

Comment 1: NMFS should include 

the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) 

recommended by the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) 

in alternative suite 5 because if that 

alternative were selected, the MPAs 

proposed by the SAFMC would still 

need to be implemented. 

Response: NMFS decided to include a 

prohibition on shark BLL fishing in the 

MPAs in several of the alternative suites 

in order to ensure that the SAFMC’s 

Amendment 14 prohibition on bottom 

tending gear would include HMS BLL 

gear. NMFS needed to implement 

complementary regulations in order for 

the MPAs to be effective. Since 

alternative suite 5 would have resulted 

in a closure of the entire shark fishery, 

no shark BLL fishing would occur in the 

MPAs or elsewhere. Thus, NMFS did 

not need to include a prohibition on 

shark BLL fishing in MPAs in 

alternative suite 5. 

Comment 2: NMFS received a number 

of specific comments regarding the 

MPAs recommended by the SAFMC, 

including: 1) coordinates of MPAs —

NMFS should provide the correct 

coordinates for the Charleston Deep 

Artificial Reef MPA; 2) NMFS should 

state the specific type of MPAs being 

implemented (i.e., type II MPAs); and, 

3) NMFS should include a transit 

exemption for vessels traveling through 

proposed MPAs with BLL. 

Response: NMFS is aware of problems 

with the coordinates provided in the 

Draft Amendment for the Charleston 

Deep Artificial Reef and has provided 

the correct coordinates for the 

Charleston Deep Artificial Reef in Final 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP. In the Draft EIS, NMFS described 

the MPAs as type II MPAs according to 

the language used in the SAFMC’s 

Amendment 14. Type II MPAs are areas 

that are closed to bottom fishing but 

allow trolling for coastal pelagics and 

HMS. Since NMFS is prohibiting the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40671 

use of BLL gear in these MPAs there is 

no need to specify the type of MPA in 

the proposed or final rules. Readers 

should refer to SAFMC’s Amendment 

14 for more information on the type of 

MPAs being recommended by the 

Council and being implemented by 

NMFS. NMFS did not implement a 

stowage provision because very few 

HMS permitted vessels have historically 

fished in the MPAs, and the MPAs are 

generally small in size and can easily be 

circumnavigated by BLL vessels. If the 

SAFMC recommends a stowage 

provision, then NMFS may consider a 

similar backstop provision in the HMS 

regulations. 

Comment 3: NMFS should implement 

VMS requirements for the SAFMC 

Amendment 14 MPAs. 

Response: Consistent with SAFMC’s 

Amendment 14, which does not include 

a VMS requirement, NMFS determined 

that it was unnecessary to implement a 

VMS requirement for HMS vessels. 

NMFS has several other VMS 

requirements in place for HMS vessels 

including all vessels with gillnet gear 

during certain times of the year, BLL 

vessels in the vicinity of the midAtlantic shark closed area, and all 

vessels with PLL gear on board yearround. To the extent that some of those 

vessels would fish in the vicinity of the 

MPAs, NMFS would be able to track 

their movements. However, most vessels 

that do not fish with PLL and maintain 

directed or incidental shark permits in 

the South Atlantic are not required to 

have VMS. 

Comment 4: NMFS should use the 

terms ‘‘closed areas’’ or ‘‘area closures’’

to describe the locations where the 

proposed regulations apply to avoid 

confusion on the intent of the MPAs 

(since they are for snapper/grouper, and 

not sharks) and to improve compliance 

by fishermen. ‘‘Marine protected area’’

is not a term used in the MagnusonStevens Act. NMFS should clarify how 

and why closures for fisheries 

management are part of the official MPA 

classification system. 

Response: NMFS chose to use the 

term Marine Protected Area or MPA 

because that is the specific language 

provided in Amendment 14. Although 

the intent of the MPAs is to protect 

snapper grouper species, using 

nomenclature in this final rule that 

differs from that used to refer to the 

closures in Amendment 14 may create 

confusion. As a result, NMFS is 

referring to the closures in the same way 

as the SAFMC. 

Comment 5: NMFS should prohibit 

the use of longline gear in existing and 

new MPAs. The overall amount of 

bycatch within MPAs may not be 

minimal when considered in the context 

of the relevant MPA and the number of 

species and individuals found within 

the MPA. 

Response: NMFS is prohibiting the 

use of BLL gear in all of the preferred 

SAFMC MPAs because those are the 

areas the SAFMC has determined to be 

important for certain grouper species 

that are sometimes caught incidentally 

on shark BLL gear. 

Comment 6: The ASMFC Spiny 

Dogfish and Coastal Sharks Management 

Board would like NMFS to reconsider 

the closures off of North Carolina. 

Specifically, the Board asks that the 

duration of the closure be reduced to 

run from January 1 – May 14. This 

request is based on the Coastal Sharks 

Technical Committee’s recommendation 

for a state water closure from May 15 

through July 15 from Virginia to New 

Jersey. This state water closure is 

designed to protect large adult female 

sandbar sharks when they are on the 

pupping grounds. The closure off of 

North Carolina was designed to protect 

juvenile sharks in the nursery area 

during the winter; however the majority 

of the small sharks have migrated out of 

that area by mid-May. 

Response: The mid-Atlantic shark 

closed area was implemented to protect 

juvenile sandbar sharks and all life 

stages of prohibited dusky sharks. 

Survey data collected from the NOAA 

fisheries research vessel Delaware II 

from April through May 2007 indicate 

that the majority of sandbar sharks 

caught in the mid Atlantic shark closed 

area were juvenile (56–percent 

immature vs. 44–percent mature). 

Therefore, maintaining the mid-Atlantic 

closed area should continue to reduce 

the number of interactions of BLL gear 

with sandbar and dusky sharks as well 

as reduce the number of interactions 

with immature sandbar and dusky 

sharks. This will provide positive 

ecological benefits for both of these 

overfished shark stocks. Furthermore, 

measures implemented by the ASMFC 

are not yet finalized. Once finalized 

measures are in place, NMFS may 

consider taking additional action to 

complement state measures. 

Implementing these measures before 

they are finalized and implemented in 

the ASMFC Coastal Shark FMP could 

result in inconsistent management 

measures. 

Comment 7: The SAFMC and the 

South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources support the MPAs and 

maintaining the current time/area 

closure as proposed in the draft 

amendment. 

Response: This final action will 

implement the MPA provisions in 

Amendment 14 and maintain the 

current time/area closure. 

6. Reporting 

Comment 1: NMFS should take action 

to ensure that fishermen report their 

landings correctly and honestly as most 

fishermen do not currently provide 

accurate reports. 

Response: The regulations require 

fishermen to submit accurate and 

truthful reports on their fishing 

activities. NMFS can and does verify 

logbook reports and catch rates with 

observer reports, as needed. If fishermen 

and/or dealers choose not to abide by 

the regulations, then they may face 

enforcement action. 

Comment 2: NMFS received many 

comments on the dealer reporting 

timeframe, including: NMFS should 

consider stronger restrictions on dealer 

reporting; NMFS should allow twoweeks for dealer reports to be submitted; 

10 days is acceptable for the report to 

be postmarked, but not for NMFS to 

receive it; NMFS should consider more 

frequent reporting; NMFS should 

consider 24 hour reporting for shark 

dealers; NMFS should consider 

electronic reporting for dealers (once a 

week); dealers still need to be able to fax 

reports; more frequent reporting is not 

needed. NMFS should take action 

against dealers that are not reporting; 

NMFS should not renew a dealer permit 

if they don’t report on time; making 

reports ‘‘received by’’ will not allow 

fishermen to know if NMFS got their 

report on time; and NMFS should 

provide confirmation numbers when 

dealer reports are received. 

Response: NMFS prefers to require 

dealer reports be received within ten 

days of the end of the reporting period 

at this time because a ‘‘received by’’

requirement can be tracked by NMFS, 

the dealers, and enforcement more 

easily than a ‘‘postmarked’’

requirement. NMFS is concerned about 

dealers that are not reporting and is 

working with the Office of Law 

Enforcement to pursue shark dealers 

who do not meet their reporting 

obligations. Additionally, given recent 

issues with dealers not realizing that 

substantial landing reports were not 

received by NMFS, NMFS feels that 

requiring reports to be ‘‘received by’’ a 

certain day will aid in ensuring all 

reports are received by NMFS in a 

timely manner. The final action does 

not require twenty-four hour reporting 

because such reporting would result in 

an unduly increased reporting burden 

for shark dealers at this time. NMFS 

may consider additional modifications 

and/or adjustments to reporting 

frequency for future implementation. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40672 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

NMFS is currently capable of 

accepting electronic reports from some 

dealers who have access to that data 

system in the Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center and faxes of shark dealer 

landings. NMFS does not issue 

confirmation numbers when shark 

dealer reports are received; however, 

submitting dealer reports by FAX or 

electronically includes a date/time 

stamp in addition to whether the 

transmission was successful or not. 

Shark dealers may also consider using 

certified mail to provide verification 

that the correspondence was received. 

Comment 3: NMFS should be more 

proactive and contact dealers as the 

quotas fill up. 

Response: Significant overharvests in 

the shark fishery in recent years have 

occurred because shark dealers were not 

submitting their reports, or verifying 

that their reports were received by 

NMFS in the time period required by 

NMFS regulations. NMFS is working to 

ensure better compliance with its 

reporting regulations by encouraging 

shark dealers to report on time or face 

possible enforcement action for failing 

to do so. 

Comment 4: Does NMFS have a 

specified time within which it must 

turn around dealer reports? 

Response: NMFS provides shark 

landings reports, by complex or species, 

on a frequent basis to ensure 

participants are aware of catches in the 

shark fishery. NMFS does not have a 

specified time frame as to when it 

provides landings reports; however, 

efforts are being made to provide more 

frequent shark landings updates in light 

of the final action to close seasons when 

a species/complex quota has reached 

80–percent of their quota. 

Comment 5: NMFS should stick to its 

existing reporting system rather than 

create a new one. 

Response: NMFS will not institute a 

new reporting system for shark dealers 

or fishermen in this final rule. 

Comment 6: NMFS should not allow 

sharks to be listed as unclassifieds and, 

if dealers continue to report 

unclassifieds, they should have their 

permits revoked. Unclassified sharks 

should not be counted against the 

sandbar shark quota because the 

sandbar shark quota for the research 

fishery is already miniscule. 

Response: Current regulations require 

that all sharks landed be identified and 

reported at the species-level. This final 

action adds language to clarify this 

requirement. While reporting sharks as 

‘‘unclassified’’ violates the regulations, 

and NMFS has recently completed shark 

identification workshops to improve 

shark dealers’ identification skills, 

NMFS must account for unclassified 

shark landings to produce timely and 

accurate shark landings reports and 

because this data is used in stock 

assessments. Under this final action 

NMFS will use species composition 

data from the observer reports outside 

the shark research fishery to determine 

which proportion of unclassified sharks 

should be deducted from the 

appropriate quotas (i.e., sandbar, nonsandbar LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks). 

This methodology is consistent with 

how unclassified sharks are treated in 

stock assessments. Shark dealers that 

continually report sharks as unclassified 

will be reported to NOAA Office of Law 

Enforcement and may face enforcement 

action. 

NMFS proposed counting all 

unclassified sharks from shark dealer 

reports as sandbar sharks to provide 

dealers with an incentive to identify 

sharks to the species level because if the 

quota for sandbar sharks were filled, 

they would no longer be able to 

purchase sandbar sharks. However, 

NMFS believes that allocating landings 

to the appropriate complex/species 

based on observer data is a more 

accurate means of accounting for 

unclassified landings. Furthermore, 

NMFS is concerned that counting all 

unclassified sharks as sandbar sharks 

may result in the shark research fishery 

closing prematurely. 

Comment 7: NMFS received a 

comment stating that a dealer had 

inadvertently reported all sharks landed 

in the past as sandbar sharks and that 

they knew of no dealers that identify 

sharks at the species level. 

Response: All dealers are required to 

report shark landings at the species 

level. NMFS instituted a requirement to 

attend shark identification workshops to 

assist dealers in properly identifying 

sharks in order to obtain more accurate 

landings data. 

Comment 8: NMFS received a 

comment wondering how the stock 

assessments can use the dealer data 

because of the lack of species-level 

landings data for sharks. 

Response: Many dealers do report at 

a species-specific level. However, not all 

do. Thus, stock assessment scientists 

assign unclassified sharks to a species/ 

complex group based on species 

composition data from the observer 

program. Regional and temporal species 

composition data attained from 

observed trips are summarized and 

applied to the unclassified sharks to 

estimate the proportion that should be 

assigned to respective quotas and 

complexes. 

Comment 9: NMFS received a 

comment in support of the workshops 

for shark identification because dealers 

have observed a drastic reduction in the 

number of sharks that are not being 

identified properly. 

Response: NMFS is encouraged by the 

results of the shark identification 

workshops for dealers. Better shark 

identification should lead to more 

accurate landings data, which should 

improve the quality of data used in 

stock assessments. 

Comment 10: NMFS received several 

comments on the ‘‘dealer’’ definition 

(i.e., who is required to have a dealer 

permit), including: NMFS should 

provide the current definition of a shark 

dealer; the current definition is 

satisfactory; the proposed dealer 

definition is appropriate; the first 

receiver cannot be the shark dealer; an 

intermediary on land is needed solely 

for transport; and, the definition should 

take into account multiple transfers. 

Response: The current definition of a 

shark dealer is a person that receives, 

purchases, trades for, or barters for 

Atlantic sharks from a fishing vessel of 

the United States (50 CFR 635.4(g)(2)). 

When NMFS implemented the shark 

identification workshops, many dealers 

were confused as to whether they 

needed to attend a workshop because 

they buy sharks from another dealer, 

who buys sharks from a fishing vessel. 

Because the sharks originally came from 

a fishing vessel, these secondary dealers 

had obtained a shark dealer permit. To 

clarify who needs to attend the 

workshops and to aid enforcement, this 

final action modifies the definition of 

shark dealers and is modified from the 

proposed definition based on public 

comments. Specifically, the final action 

clarifies that shark dealer permits are 

required only for ‘‘first receivers.’’ The 

definition of a ‘‘first receiver’’ at 50 CFR 

635.2 is ‘‘entity, person, or company 

that takes, for commercial purposes 

(other than solely for transport), 

immediate possession of the fish, or any 

part of the fish, as the fish are offloaded 

from a fishing vessel of the United 

States, as defined under § 600.10 of this 

chapter, whose owner or operator have 

been issued or should have been issued 

a valid permit under this part.’’

Comment 11: Can federally permitted 

dealers buy state landed sharks? Do 

federally permitted dealers have to 

report state landings? 

Response: The current regulations at 

50 CFR 635.31(c)(4) state that federal 

dealers may purchase a shark only from 

an owner or operator of a vessel that has 

a valid commercial federal permit for 

shark, except that federal dealers may 

purchase a shark from an owner or 

operator of a vessel that does not have 

a commercial federal permit for shark if 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40673 

that vessel fishes exclusively in state 

waters (i.e., no federal commercial shark 

permit). Federal dealer permit holders 

must report all sharks landed, including 

those from state waters, and cannot 

purchase any sharks, caught in state or 

Federal waters, once the Federal shark 

fishing season is closed. Additionally, 

on May 6, 2008, the Spiny Dogfish and 

Coastal Shark Board of ASMFC voted to 

require all state dealers to obtain a 

federal shark dealer permit. As such, 

when the ASMFC Coastal Shark FMP is 

fully finalized and implemented, 

expected in 2009, state shark dealers 

from Maine to Florida will be required 

to obtain a federal shark dealer permit 

and attend shark identification 

workshops. 

Comment 12: NMFS received a 

comment questioning the mechanism 

that requires dealers to report on time. 

Response: All federally permitted 

shark dealers are required to submit a 

dealer report on a bimonthly basis. 

Failure to do so could result in 

enforcement action. 

Comment 13: NMFS should 

implement the strongest possible 

restrictions to ensure prompt and 

reliable reporting by dealers, within 24 

hours if possible. Landings of 300 to 

500–percent of allowable quotas, even if 

subtracted in subsequent seasons, are 

simply not acceptable and do not reflect 

the close attention and precautionary 

action required to achieve sustainable 

shark fisheries. 

Response: Accountability measures 

for quota overharvests are necessary. 

The TAC has been reduced considerably 

and overharvests are accounted for over 

time. Importantly, the final action 

includes closing the fishery for a 

particular species when 80–percent of 

the quota is reached with five days 

notice upon filing in the Federal 

Register in order to reduce the 

likelihood of overharvests. NMFS will 

also send out e-mail notices and 

conduct outreach regarding closures 

upon filing in the Federal Register, 

giving fishermen five days to be notified 

of a closure. Reduced retention limits 

and other effort control measures are 

expected to reduce fishing mortality in 

the shark fishery. In addition, under the 

final action, NMFS is changing the 

reporting requirements for shark dealers 

so that shark dealer reports must be 

received by NMFS within 10 days after 

the reporting period ends. This will 

ensure timelier reporting and 

potentially avoid overharvests. 

Comment 14: NMFS received several 

comments regarding excess shark 

landings in state waters and NMFS’

coordination with various states, 

including: NMFS should preempt the 

State of Louisiana or others as necessary 

pursuant to authority provided in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (section 306(b)) 

if shark landings in state waters impact 

Federal shark fishery management; 

NMFS should recognize that Federal 

fishermen are catching adults during 

designated fishing seasons, while state 

fishermen are catching juveniles all year 

long; NMFS should allow Federally 

permitted fishermen to fish in state 

waters; NMFS should ensure that state 

waters are closed at the same times as 

Federal waters to protect juveniles; 

NMFS should consult with the states in 

order to manage fisheries better; NMFS 

should require states to abide by Federal 

rules; and NMFS should coordinate 

with the ASMFC. 

Response: Pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Act, NMFS has jurisdiction to 

manage fisheries in Federal waters of 

the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

Landings in state waters are counted 

against Federal shark quotas because 

many shark species inhabit both Federal 

and state waters, and thus make up one 

population or stock. NMFS includes 

state landings in stock assessments for 

coastal sharks. This practice is 

consistent with quota monitoring and 

management strategies for many marine 

species. 

NMFS has been working with the 

State of Louisiana, and other states, to 

ensure consistent management strategies 

for sharks in state and Federal waters 

due to excessive landings that occurred 

in Louisiana state waters in 2007. In 

2007, the State of Louisiana agreed with 

NMFS to close its state waters when the 

federal fishery closed during the third 

trimester of 2007. Additionally, ASMFC 

recently voted on final management 

measures for a coast-wide state shark 

plan for states in the Atlantic Ocean. 

The final measures included in the 

ASMFC Coastal Shark FMP are expected 

to be effective in 2009. Many of the final 

measures in the ASMFC Coastal Shark 

FMP are consistent with federal 

regulations and will require commercial 

state shark fisheries to open and close 

with federal openings and closures. The 

implementation of ASMFC’s Coastal 

Shark FMP could potentially lead to 

similar measures being implemented in 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

Comment 15: NMFS should provide 

information in the shark landings 

update on the percentage of total shark 

landings that are state and Federal. 

Response: Federal dealers must report 

all landings; however, they are not 

required to differentiate which landings 

are purchased from Federal vessels and 

which shark products are purchased 

from state vessels (if a Federal dealer 

also has a state dealer permit). Current 

reporting requirements make it difficult 

to determine state versus Federal 

landings, although NMFS generally does 

not need to distinguish these landings 

because all landings are used in stock 

assessments and are counted against the 

federal shark quota. 

Comment 16: The stock assessment 

does not take the area inside state 

waters into consideration. 

Response: Stock assessments include 

both fishery dependent and fishery 

independent landings and effort data 

from state and Federal waters. 

Comment 17: NMFS should not 

mandate that all shark fishing stop 

entirely once the sandbar quota is met. 

Response: NMFS will not close both 

the sandbar and non-sandbar LCS 

fisheries if either quota is met. Rather, 

NMFS will close the sandbar and nonsandbar LCS quota, individually, if 

either fishery reaches 80–percent of its 

respective quotas. 

Comment 18: The State of Florida 

supports decreasing the length of time it 

takes to supply NMFS with landings 

information used to manage the shark 

fishery. NMFS should also decrease the 

time it takes to make this information 

available to the public. The time 

required for NMFS to process such 

information should be established in a 

rule. 

Response: NMFS makes every attempt 

to provide timely reports of shark 

catches to constituents on a frequent 

basis in order for fishermen to plan their 

activities accordingly. However, it is 

also necessary to ensure that shark 

landings data are accurate prior to 

making them available to the public. 

NMFS will attempt to provide more 

frequent shark landings updates in the 

future. 

7. Seasons 

Comment 1: The change to one 

commercial season would lead to derby 

fishing. 

Response: NMFS believes that a 

commercial season that opens January 1 

and remains open until 80-percent of 

the quota is achieved, coupled with the 

significantly reduced retention limits for 

directed permit holders, should 

adequately prevent derby fishing. Derby 

fishing is more likely when seasons are 

shorter in duration, and when retention 

limits are large enough to encourage 

targeting of a specific species. The final 

action results in one season, opening 

January 1. Additionally, the season is 

expected to remain open for most of the 

year as fishermen outside the research 

fishery are not expected to make trips 

targeting non-sandbar LCS because of 

reduced retention limits and the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40674 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

prohibition on the retention of sandbar 

sharks. 

Comment 2: NMFS received several 

comments including a comment from 

the State of Florida regarding the 

proposal to open shark seasons on 

January 1, including: NMFS should 

consider the fact that not all shark 

species are present in all regions in 

equal abundance on January 1; July may 

be a more appropriate time to open the 

season; January 1 may be good for 

sandbar sharks but not other species; 

opening the season at another time may 

result in the quota being filled before 

sharks arrive in some regions; the 

season should be opened on January 1. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the fact 

that sharks are migratory and present in 

different areas, at different levels of 

abundance, at different times of the 

year. In this final action, NMFS will 

only allow landings of sandbar sharks 

by a limited number of vessels selected 

to participate in a shark research 

fishery. Therefore, only vessels 

participating in this fishery will be 

authorized to target sandbar sharks, and 

only when a NMFS-approved observer 

is on board. Vessels outside the research 

fishery would be allowed to keep 33 

non-sandbar LCS for directed permit 

holders and 3 non-sandbar LCS for 

incidental permit holders. NMFS 

anticipates that this reduced retention 

limit will likely result in directed shark 

fishermen no longer targeting nonsandbar LCS outside the research 

fishery. Rather, shark fishermen would 

be authorized to keep non-sandbar LCS 

incidentally caught while targeting 

other species. Given that fishermen 

outside the research fishery are not 

expected to target non-sandbar LCS, 

NMFS expects that the shark seasons 

would be open longer, and fishermen in 

the regions that have non-sandbar LCS 

present later in the year would still be 

able to harvest non-sandbar LCS when 

they are present. In addition, opening 

the season on January 1 should allow 

the shark fishery to overlap with open 

seasons for other non-shark species and 

may reduce regulatory discards that may 

occur as a result of keeping the shark 

season closed until later in the year. 

Comment 3: NMFS received 

numerous comments, including 

comments from the ASMFC and the 

State of Florida that NMFS should open 

the season in July instead of January 1 

so the season would be open when 

sharks are present in all areas and to 

prevent fishing mortality during shark 

pupping season. Other comments 

included: NMFS should not allow shark 

fishing during April, May, and June as 

these months are when shark pupping 

occurs and state waters should be closed 

from May 15 through July 15 to protect 

pupping; considering the size of the 

quota, shark migration patterns, and the 

ASMFC closure, it is likely that the 

quota would be harvested before sharks 

become available to fishermen in the 

North Atlantic; beginning the fishing 

season on July 16 would allow the quota 

to be shared geographically; opening the 

fishing season in July would reduce 

mortality of pregnant females and 

ensure that northern states have access 

to the fishery. 

Response: Opening the season on 

January 1 and keeping it open until 80–

percent of a quota is achieved may 

result in pregnant or neonate sharks 

being landed along with other sharks. 

However, given the low retention limits 

for non-sandbar sharks outside the 

research fishery and because fishermen 

will not be allowed to retain sandbar 

sharks outside the research fishery, 

NMFS expects that fishermen with 

directed shark permits outside the 

research fishery will no longer target 

non-sandbar LCS. This should reduce 

overall shark mortality, including 

mortality of pregnant females during 

pupping season. The retention limits 

should also allow fishermen to keep 

non-sandbar LCS that they catch while 

targeting other species. If the season is 

closed from April through June or July, 

vessels that land sharks while targeting 

other species will have to discard all 

sharks. The ASMFC is implementing a 

Coastal Shark FMP for sharks in state 

waters from Maine through Florida. 

Since most shark pupping occurs in 

state waters, NMFS feels the ASMFC 

plan may be more appropriate for 

addressing fishing mortality of pregnant 

females or neonate sharks. However, 

now that the ASMFC plan is expected 

to be implemented in 2009, NMFS may 

modify the season closure in the future 

as a result of the ASMFC shark plan. 

Comment 4: NMFS should provide 

more advance notice of season openings 

because fishermen have had a hard time 

planning how much bait they need to 

buy, planning for freezer spaces, etc. 

Response: NMFS must complete 

proposed and final rulemaking prior to 

the establishment of shark seasons. 

Under any final action establishing an 

annual shark season, NMFS will open 

the fishing season on or about January 

1 of each year (except 2008). The season 

will likely remain open longer than 

usual, dependent upon available quota. 

Rulemaking in the Federal Register 

prior to the opening of the subsequent 

season’s start date (on or around January 

1) will provide the available quota, 

retention limits, and other pertinent 

information. 

Comment 5: NMFS should implement 

one shark fishing season. 

Response: NMFS is implementing one 

season, starting January 1 each year. 

This date is more likely to overlap with 

open seasons for other BLL and gillnet 

fisheries, and also provides fishermen a 

full calendar year to harvest available 

quota. 

Comment 6: NMFS should ensure that 

smaller amounts of shark are 

consistently available throughout the 

year to help increase the price and 

marketability of sharks since restaurants 

would know they could count on it year 

round. Currently, with such short 

seasons, there is not really a market. 

Response: Short seasons under 

existing trip limits may quickly flood 

markets, depressing prices for some 

shark products, particularly shark meat. 

Shark meat prices are more likely to be 

affected by the short seasons because 

there is less demand for shark meat than 

for shark fins. The majority of shark fins 

are exported to other countries and 

prices for shark fins tend to remain 

higher and more stable than shark meat. 

In the past, fishermen with directed 

shark permits were able to make 

profitable trips exclusively for sharks. 

Reduced retention limits and 

prohibition on retaining sandbar sharks 

outside the research fishery should 

reduce the likelihood that fishermen 

will make trips targeting non-sandbar 

LCS outside the research fishery. Rather, 

fishermen are more likely to harvest 

non-sandbar LCS incidentally while 

targeting other species. NMFS expects 

that a fishing season that opens on 

January 1 each year with lower retention 

limits will result in smaller quantities of 

shark product being available for a 

larger proportion of the year. This could 

conceivably increase demand and 

marketability of shark products because 

the availability of meat and fins would 

be more reliable throughout the year 

compared to the past when shark 

seasons were only open for short 

periods of time. This increased demand 

for shark products on behalf of 

wholesalers may translate to elevated 

prices received by shark fishermen for 

shark meat and fins. 

Comment 7: NMFS should elaborate 

on the reasons that trimesters were 

originally implemented for the 

commercial shark fishery. Trimesters 

may still be necessary to reduce fishing 

mortality. 

Response: Trimesters were originally 

implemented as a way to increase the 

availability of shark meat throughout 

the year while also reducing fishing 

mortality during peak pupping seasons 

and addressing other bycatch concerns. 

This final action implements significant 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40675 

measures to reduce fishing mortality of 

sharks(predominantly by modifying 

quotas, retention limits, and species 

authorized to be landed in commercial 

and recreational fisheries) and also 

implements measures that are expected 

to result in small amounts of shark meat 

to be available in the markets yearround. 

These final measures should reduce 

the mortality of pregnant females. 

Furthermore, the closed area off the 

coast of North Carolina, which is 

important habitat for dusky and sandbar 

sharks, will continue to be in effect. 

NMFS does not expect that fishermen 

will be able to make a profitable trip 

‘‘targeting’’ sharks with the preferred 

retention limits and because of the fact 

that sandbar sharks may not be 

possessed outside the shark research 

fishery. The resulting incidental fishery 

will likely translate into significant 

benefits to shark populations as a whole 

while also eliminating the need to 

maintain trimesters. 

Comment 8: Closing the season when 

landings reach the 80–percent threshold 

should be sufficient, but can the other 

20–percent of the quota be filled in five 

days? NMFS should consider closing 

the shark fishery at 90 to 95–percent of 

the quota and consider re-opening a 

season if the quota has not been caught 

for a given season. 

Response: NMFS requested public 

comment specifically on setting 80- 

percent as a threshold for closing the 

fishery because it allows a substantial 

percentage of the allowable harvest to 

occur, yet allows a sufficient buffer to 

prevent overharvest from the time the 

80-percent is reached until the time 

NMFS can actually close the fishery. 

NMFS’ goal is to allow fishermen to 

harvest the full quota without exceeding 

it in order to maximize economic 

benefits to stakeholders while achieving 

long-term conservation goals and 

preventing overfishing. Closing the 

fishery via appropriate rulemaking, 

while providing at least a five-day 

notice of a closure (upon filing of the 

final rule with the Office of the Federal 

Register and the availability of the final 

rule for public inspection), should allow 

fishermen to complete fishing trips that 

have already been initiated and/or 

provide fishermen the chance to catch 

additional quota if they embarked on 

additional trips prior to the closure. As 

mentioned previously, the reduced 

retention limits and the fact that 

fishermen outside the research fishery 

will not be allowed to land sandbar 

sharks is expected to reduce the number 

of trips targeting non-sandbar LCS and 

keep the shark season open year-round. 

Additionally, NMFS must take into 

account state landings that continue to 

occur after closure of the Federal 

fishery. 

NMFS believes that, given the two 

week reporting period for dealer reports 

and the potential for late reporting, 

closing the fishery when landings reach 

90- to 95–percent of the quota would 

likely result in overharvests. 

Overharvests will result in reduced 

quotas in the future since all 

overharvests will be accounted for when 

establishing subsequent seasons and 

quotas. 

Comment 9: NMFS should allow more 

time prior to closing the seasons. A 5- 

day notice will not work for PLL 

fishermen because their trips are long. 

Response: PLL gear is not the primary 

gear-type used to harvest sharks. Most 

sharks are landed on BLL or gillnet gear 

on trips that last several days. 

Fishermen deploying PLL gear generally 

target tunas and/or swordfish depending 

on the time of the year and location. 

Therefore, NMFS does not expect the 

rulemaking process for closing the shark 

fishery, which would provide at least a 

five day notice upon filing of the final 

rule with the Office of the Federal 

Register and the availability of the final 

rule for public inspection, to have 

adverse impacts on vessels deploying 

PLL gear. Before the 1999 FMP for 

Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, 

the shark fishery was closed via 

appropriate rulemaking with five days’

notice; therefore, there is a precedent for 

this amount of time prior to taking 

action. 

Comment 10: NMFS should consider 

a 3-day warning prior to closing seasons 

to prevent overharvests, consistent with 

the notice granted in the bluefin 

industry. This would better assure that 

quotas are not exceeded. If NMFS does 

not decrease the closure time to three 

days, and instead keeps five days, 

NMFS should adopt the trigger of 70–

percent rather than 80–percent. 

Response: In closing the fishery 

through appropriate rulemaking, NMFS 

will provide at least a five day notice for 

closures to maximize the proportion of 

the quota that fishermen may harvest 

without exceeding the quota and to 

allow time for notifying fishermen of a 

closure. When the final rule is filed with 

the Office of the Federal Register and 

available for public inspection, NMFS 

will send out e-mail notices and other 

outreach materials to notify the public 

of the fishery closure within at least 5 

days. NMFS anticipates that the notice 

will publish in the Federal Register 

approximately one day after filing, and 

then the fishery would officially close 

no earlier than five days from the 

original filing date. NMFS believes 

closing the fishery for individual 

species or species complexes with at 

least five days notice upon filing in the 

Federal Register is adequate to prevent 

overharvests. Historically, shark trips 

have been 1-4 days. Therefore, a 

minimum of five days’ notice should be 

adequate because it should give 

fishermen enough time to complete trips 

that are already in progress. Significant 

reductions in retention limits and the 

fact that fishermen outside the research 

fishery cannot retain sandbar sharks 

should also reduce the potential for 

overharvests in the period between 

meeting the 80-percent threshold and 

when the fishery is actually closed a 

minimum of five days later. 

Comment 11: NMFS should predict 

how long the season should remain 

open to fill the quota based on past 

catch rates. 

Response: In recent years, seasons 

have been set based on available quota, 

past catch rates, and other 

considerations. Given the final action, 

NMFS feels that continuing this practice 

may continue to result in significant 

overharvests and may not be the best 

strategy for ensuring that sandbar, 

dusky, and porbeagle shark populations 

rebuild. Overharvests in 2006 and 2007 

may be indicative of past catch rates not 

being appropriate indicators of future 

catch rates because of the fact that in 

those years, catch rates were greater and 

the quota was smaller, leading to 

overharvests. In addition, significant 

changes in quotas, authorized species, 

and retention limits would further 

complicate establishing seasons in 

advance. 

Comment 12: NMFS needs to analyze 

the length of trips that land sharks and 

base the time needed to notify the 

fishery on the length of those trips. 

Response: Observer data indicate that 

most trips targeting sharks last between 

1-4 days depending on the region, 

season, and amount of sharks that are 

landed. However, this duration 

corresponds to past retention limits that 

are being reduced substantially for 

directed permit holders. Five days was 

selected as a reasonable minimum 

amount of time for fishermen to get 

word about a fishery closure and either 

finish a current trip without discarding 

dead sharks, or initiate a trip for another 

species prior to the closure while 

keeping the ability to land sharks 

incidentally. NMFS anticipates that the 

significant reduction in retention limits 

and the prohibition on retaining sandbar 

sharks outside the research fishery will 

result in most fishermen targeting other 

species and incidentally landing nonsandbar LCS. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40676 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment 13: NMFS needs to look at 

past data to determine whether a 80- 

percent threshold is adequate to prevent 

overharvests based on how much quota 

is caught after the seasons. 

Response: NMFS selected the 80- 

percent threshold for closing the season, 

with a minimum of five days’ notice 

upon filing of the final rule with the 

Office of the Federal Register, because it 

should ensure that the majority of the 

quota is harvested without exceeding 

the quota. Giving fishermen the 

opportunity to harvest most of the quota 

within a given season is important 

because the final action carries forward 

only underharvests for species that are 

not overfished, experiencing 

overfishing, or of unknown status. 

8. Regions 

Comment 1: NMFS received several 

comments regarding regions. Comments 

in favor of maintaining three regions 

under the status quo included: NMFS 

should assess the impacts of moving to 

one region; NMFS should describe the 

rationale for moving to one region; 

NMFS should not implement one 

region; having one region ignores the 

stock assessments and the temporal 

nature of the fishery; NMFS should 

implement separate permits, separate 

fishing zones, and separate quotas, so 

that fishermen in one zone are not 

penalized for a quota overharvest that 

occurs in another zone; the ASMFC 

requests a minimum of two management 

regions (Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic 

States) to ensure equitable and 

biologically sound geographic 

distribution of quotas; a one-region plan 

could reduce or eliminate any quota for 

Atlantic States if Gulf of Mexico states 

overharvest; the Gulf States do not have 

coordinated management and have 

overharvested in excess of 200–percent 

in recent years; under one management 

region, the ASMFC would have reduced 

or zero quotas for years subsequent to 

Gulf overharvests. 

NMFS also received several 

comments opposed to maintaining the 

three regions, including: NMFS should 

either divide quota equally among 

regions or have one region since quotas 

are so low; Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic stocks should be managed as 

one unit. 

NMFS received numerous comments 

from Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 

ASMFC, Mississippi Department of 

Marine Resources, and members of the 

general public in favor of maintaining 

more than one region. Commenters 

suggested reasons for maintaining more 

than one region, including: the best 

scientific evidence available indicates 

that the Gulf of Mexico and the South 

Atlantic stocks are separate; genetic 

evidence has shown separate stocks of 

some species between the Gulf and 

South Atlantic; shark management 

should account for separate stocks and 

separate the quota accordingly; blacktip 

sharks are healthy in the Gulf of Mexico; 

bycatch issues are unique to each 

region; and, moving to one region 

ignores stock assessments and the 

temporal nature of the fishery, which 

was identified during the previous 

amendment. 

Response: In the Draft EIS, NMFS 

proposed merging the status quo’s three 

regions into one region to simplify quota 

monitoring and to prevent derby-style 

fishing and potential overharvests that 

could occur as a result of attempting to 

allocate smaller quotas to regional and 

trimester seasons. The impacts of 

establishing only one region instead of 

three were assessed in the Draft EIS for 

Amendment 2. The analyses indicated 

that the overall economic impacts could 

be negative in regions (i.e., North 

Atlantic) that do not have sharks present 

in their waters year-round if the fishery 

closed early in the year. The ecological 

impacts of implementing one region 

were expected to be neutral. 

Based on public comment, NMFS has 

decided to implement two regions, the 

Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, rather 

than one region as originally proposed. 

Maintaining two regions has several 

advantages, including: it adheres to the 

stock assessment for blacktip sharks 

which assessed this species separately 

in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; it 

accounts for overharvests that occurred 

in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic in 

2007 more equitably; it allows for 

unique quotas to be implemented in 

each region that account for different 

species composition in each region; and 

it maintains the flexibility to implement 

unique regulations in the Gulf of Mexico 

and Atlantic Ocean. 

The 2006 LCS assessment assessed 

blacktip sharks as two distinct 

populations in the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic. Unique results were found for 

each population with the Gulf of Mexico 

population healthy and the Atlantic 

stock unknown. The assessment 

recommended maintaining current 

harvest levels in both regions. NMFS 

prefers measures consistent with the 

stock assessment by maintaining two 

regions: the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic. The blacktip shark was the 

only species assessed as distinct, 

regional populations. 

At this time, NMFS does not issue 

unique permits based on geography 

within the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf 

of Mexico. This type of permit was not 

considered during this rulemaking. 

Comment 2: NMFS should have one 

region because, since NMFS went into 

regions, we have been going over the 

quota. 

Response: There are several factors 

that may be the cause of recent 

overharvests. These overharvests have 

likely occurred because of increased 

fishing effort, inconsistent reporting on 

behalf of the dealers, and the fact that 

previous years’ overharvests are taken 

off subsequent years’ quotas resulting in 

smaller regional quotas. As quotas 

decrease and effort stays the same, the 

likelihood of overharvests increases. 

The rationale for two regions is 

provided in response to Comment 1 

directly above and elsewhere in the 

preamble to this rulemaking. 

Comment 3: NMFS should describe 

the original reasoning for establishing 

the three regions. 

Response: The regions were 

established in regulations implementing 

Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP in 2003 

because of spatial differences in fishery 

practices, variable catch-per-unit-effort 

(CPUE) between regions, and to afford 

managers the flexibility to adjust 

regional quotas to reduce mortality of 

juvenile and pregnant female sharks. 

Comment 4: NMFS should create a 

separate region for the Caribbean. 

Response: The Caribbean is currently 

managed as part of the South Atlantic 

region. This final action includes the 

Caribbean in the Atlantic region. Permit 

data indicate that there are not any 

commercial shark fishing permits and 

only one shark dealer permit in the 

Caribbean region. In addition, NMFS is 

in the process of initiating rulemaking 

to address some of the unique aspects of 

Caribbean fisheries for HMS. 

Comment 5: NMFS should change the 

regions so that the Florida Keys are 

entirely in the South Atlantic or entirely 

in the Gulf of Mexico. The State of 

Florida recommends that the existing 

regions be maintained, however, both 

the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida 

should be kept in the same region to 

facilitate improved management and 

enforcement. 

Response: NMFS implemented 

separate regions for the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic in Amendment 1 to 

the 1999 FMP. The existing boundary 

between the regions was adopted 

because it is consistent with the 

boundary defined by the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils and by ASMFC. However, 

since implementing that boundary, 

NMFS has consistently considered, for 

quota monitoring purposes, any 

landings in the Florida Keys to be part 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40677 

of the Gulf of Mexico region. As such, 

in this final action and based on the 

comments received, NMFS is matching 

practice with the regulations, and is 

redefining the Gulf of Mexico to ensure 

that catch near or directly south of the 

Florida Keys is considered to be within 

the Gulf of Mexico region. NMFS does 

not expect this to change fishing 

practices as logbook data indicates that 

most fishing in the areas occurs near 

and within the Florida Keys. 

9. Recreational Measures 

Comment 1: NMFS should maintain 

the same standards for recreational and 

commercial fisheries. Since the 

commercial industry reports many 

unidentified or unclassified sharks, the 

commercial industry should be 

regulated based on misidentification as 

well. 

Response: The majority of sharks 

landed commercially are reported as 

unclassified by shark dealers, not 

fishermen. NMFS has implemented 

shark identification workshops for shark 

dealers which are expected to provide 

shark dealers with the knowledge and 

skills to properly identify the sharks 

that they purchase. Recreational 

fishermen generally do not see sharks as 

often as commercial fishermen targeting 

sharks. Thus, commercial fishermen 

may be more adept at shark 

identification. 

Comment 2: The preferred alternative 

would set a bad precedent in allowing 

a fishery that caused the decline in 

shark populations to continue on a 

limited basis, while the public cannot 

fish for the same shark species. The 

commercial fishermen should be 

allowed to catch the same shark species 

as the recreational fishermen. The 

ASMFC requests allowing recreational 

possession/take of all species that may 

be harvested by commercial fishermen 

to keep the shark fishery equitable to all 

sectors and help establish identical 

species groups. 

Response: The final action allows 

recreational permit holders to possess 

all non-ridgeback LCS and tiger sharks. 

These species of sharks have external 

characteristics that are easy for 

recreational anglers to properly identify. 

NMFS proposed to add blacktip, 

spinners, bull, and finetooth sharks to 

the list of prohibited shark species in 

the draft Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP. However, 

based on public comment, NMFS 

decided to allow recreational anglers to 

land these sharks. NMFS is allowing 

recreational anglers to land these 

species because of extensive public 

comment that was received in favor of 

allowing recreational anglers to land 

these species. NMFS is not authorizing 

recreational anglers to land sandbar 

sharks and silky sharks because 

recreational anglers may confuse these 

species with dusky sharks, which are on 

the list of prohibited shark species. 

NMFS is only allowing participants in 

the shark research fishery to land 

sandbar sharks commercially, thus, 

precluding the vast majority of 

commercial fishermen from landing 

sandbar sharks. 

Silky sharks are authorized for 

landing in commercial fisheries because 

there is a higher likelihood that these 

sharks may be discarded dead than if 

they were landed in recreational 

fisheries. Moreover, commercial 

fishermen are more adept at 

distinguishing between silky sharks and 

sandbar or dusky sharks. Prohibiting 

silky sharks in commercial fisheries 

would result in more significant 

economic consequences than 

prohibiting them in recreational 

fisheries because commercial fishermen 

are allowed to sell the fins and flesh of 

sharks that are caught in accordance 

with applicable regulations. There is not 

a significant targeted fishery among 

recreational or CHB anglers for spinner 

sharks, therefore, economic impacts 

would be less severe among this group 

of stakeholders. 

Comment 3: The recreational and 

commercial sectors contribute nearly 

equivalently towards mortality of 

sharks, and reductions in mortality are 

absolutely necessary. 

Response: NMFS is implementing 

measures consistent with recent stock 

assessments to prevent overfishing and/ 

or to rebuild stocks of porbeagle, dusky, 

and sandbar sharks. Concurrently, 

NMFS has decided not to allow 

increased landings of blacktip sharks in 

the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. 

Both commercial and recreational shark 

landings are included in stock 

assessments. While commercial 

fisheries generally comprise the 

majority of shark landings, recreational 

landings are also a significant 

component of overall shark mortality. 

Additional measures are necessary to 

reduce fishing mortality on several 

shark species. Modifications to quotas, 

authorized species, and retention limits 

are expected to prevent overfishing and 

to rebuild overfished stocks. For 

example, sandbar sharks will only be 

landed by a small number of 

commercial participants in the shark 

research fishery subject to a commercial 

quota that represents an 80–percent 

reduction in landings of sandbar sharks 

compared to previous years. 

Recreational fishermen will not be able 

to retain sandbar sharks due to their 

overfished status and the potential for 

confusion with prohibited dusky sharks. 

Comment 4: NMFS should consider 

additional alternatives for the 

recreational industry. The alternative 

suites contain either status quo or 

closure of all the recreational fisheries. 

Response: The analysis of recreational 

measures includes more alternatives 

than status quo and closing the fishery. 

Alternative suites 2 through 4 in the 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP would modify the authorized shark 

species for recreational fishermen to 

include those that can be positively 

identified. These alternatives have been 

modified in the Final Amendment 2 to 

the Consolidated HMS FMP to include 

all non-ridgeback LCS and tiger sharks 

as authorized species in recreational 

shark fisheries. 

Comment 5: NMFS should describe 

the data or analysis used to justify the 

proposed authorized species for 

recreational fisheries. There is no 

precedent for ‘‘easily-identifiable.’’

NMFS needs to make an effort to 

educate anglers before assuming they 

cannot identify what they are catching. 

The State of Georgia commented that 

NMFS should only allow sharks without 

an interdorsal ridge to be landed, 

thereby improving identification and 

reducing confusion. The State of Florida 

indicated that sandbar and dusky sharks 

can easily be differentiated from many 

other shark species by the presence of 

an interdorsal ridge. 

Response: NMFS only included shark 

species that are readily identifiable by 

recreational participants who may not 

interact with a large number of sharks 

and therefore may not be able to 

accurately identify sharks. NMFS 

specifically requested public comment 

on the proposed list to be authorized for 

recreational participants and has 

modified the final list as a result. The 

final measures allow any non-ridgeback 

LCS, tiger sharks and the current list of 

pelagic and SCS to be landed by 

recreational anglers. The absence of an 

interdorsal ridge and/or the distinctive 

black vertical stripes on tiger sharks 

should allow recreational anglers to 

determine if a shark may be possessed 

or not. NMFS intends to disseminate 

information for recreational permit 

holders on HMS regulations and 

external characteristics for positive 

identification of authorized shark 

species. 

Comment 6: The recreational fishery 

should be subject to 100 percent 

observer coverage. 

Response: Recreational permit holders 

can request to take an observer onboard 

to monitor fishing activities; however, 

they are not required to carry observers. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40678 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Observers are placed on commercial 

fishing vessels as a requirement of the 

biological opinion for the shark fishery, 

to verify logbook and dealer reports, and 

to aid managers in understanding the 

fishery. To date, the biological opinion 

issued under the Endangered Species 

Act for the shark fishery has not 

required observer coverage in the 

recreational fishery. In addition, 

recreational fishing vessels are not 

required to obtain a U.S. Coast Guard 

safety inspection, which is a 

requirement for placing observers on 

commercial vessels to ensure that the 

vessels have all the required safety 

equipment. As such, it is difficult to 

place observers on recreational vessels. 

Comment 7: NMFS received several 

comments regarding outreach efforts on 

shark identification to the recreational 

sector, including: NMFS should release 

an identification guide similar to the 

Rhode Island Sea Grant guide; 

recreational fishermen care about 

positive identification; NMFS should 

send all permit holders the $20 shark 

identification book instead of shutting 

down the fishery; NMFS should explore 

identification workshops for 

recreational fishermen; NMFS needs to 

find better ways to educate the public to 

ensure positive identification; NMFS 

should use educational tools to improve 

identification; and, recreational 

fishermen may confuse porbeagle sharks 

with shortfin makos. 

Response: In 2003, NMFS, in 

conjunction with Rhode Island Sea 

Grant, released a guide to Sharks, 

Tunas, and Billfishes of the U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. While the 

guide is currently out of print, 

additional copies are being printed and 

should be available by late summer. 

Additional materials containing similar 

information are currently available at: 

http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/bookstore/ 

index.html. 

NMFS is also working on additional 

outreach materials such as a one page 

quick identification guide to improve 

identification and understanding of 

regulations among recreational anglers. 

These outreach materials would be 

either free or available at a low cost to 

ensure that all permit holders have 

access to them. NMFS has recently 

implemented shark identification 

workshops for shark dealers and other 

interested members of the public. While 

not mandatory for recreational anglers, 

participants in any HMS sector or the 

general public may attend. These 

workshops provide anglers, dealers, and 

commercial fishermen with the ability 

to properly identify shark carcasses. 

Comment 8: NMFS received several 

comments, including comments from 

the State of Florida, the State of 

Mississippi, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council, Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department, South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, and 

the ASMFC regarding the shark species 

that should be included on the list of 

recreationally authorized shark species. 

Comments included: spinner, silky, 

bull, and blacktip sharks should be 

included in the list of species 

authorized for recreational anglers 

because fishers are capable of accurately 

identifying shark species; common 

thresher sharks should stay on the list 

of species authorized for recreational 

anglers; NMFS should not propose 

restricting recreational anglers from 

keeping blacktip sharks in the Gulf of 

Mexico if the stock is not overfished or 

experiencing overfishing; spinners are 

not endangered, nor are they depleted; 

the status of spinner or bull sharks has 

not been assessed, therefore, prohibiting 

the capture of blacktip and bull sharks 

would be an overly risk-averse strategy 

considering that the status of blacktip 

sharks (at least in the Gulf of Mexico) is 

satisfactory; identification is only a 

problem for species that cannot be 

identified externally; eliminating the 

retention of a healthy species of sharks, 

based on the assumption that they might 

be misidentified is subjective and is 

definitely not sound fishery 

management practice; NMFS is 

mandated under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (NS 1) to strive for optimum 

sustainable yield and blacktip status in 

the Gulf of Mexico is healthy; NMFS’

stated reason is concern over angler 

misidentification with sandbar and 

dusky sharks, however, these species 

may be readily identified by their 

interdorsal ridges; the list is acceptable, 

except for oceanic whitetip and 

hammerhead sharks. Do not allow the 

recreational catch of these two species 

as scientific studies show they are in 

decline; allowing the recreational 

harvest of blacktip and spinner sharks 

would therefore have no negative 

impact on sandbar and dusky sharks; 

silky sharks can be confused with dusky 

sharks and should remain off the list 

that recreational anglers may land; 

NMFS should not prohibit recreational 

anglers from landing bull, blacktip, bull, 

spinner, and finetooth sharks because 

these species represent 37–percent of 

recreational shark landings off the State 

of Florida. 

Response: The final action will allow 

recreational anglers to possess all nonridgeback LCS, including blacktip 

sharks, tiger sharks, and the currently 

allowed SCS and pelagic sharks. The 

presence/absence of an interdorsal ridge 

and other morphological characteristics, 

coupled with outreach materials on 

shark identification for recreational 

anglers, are likely to reduce the 

incidence of misidentification in this 

fishery. Common threshers would also 

continue to be authorized for landing in 

recreational shark fisheries as these 

were not proposed to be prohibited for 

recreational anglers. NMFS had 

originally proposed that blacktip and 

spinner sharks not be authorized in 

recreational fisheries because the 

morphological differences between the 

two sharks are not obvious to anglers 

who are unfamiliar with sharks, and 

because NMFS wanted to ensure that 

recreational anglers were only landing 

sharks that could be positively 

identified. Based on extensive public 

comment in support of being able to 

land blacktip, spinner, and bull sharks 

and the ability of anglers to use the 

interdorsal ridge (or lack of the 

interdorsal ridge) to more positively 

identify sharks, the final action allows 

these sharks to be landed. Further, 

NMFS will enhance outreach efforts to 

ensure that recreational shark fishermen 

are positively identifying the sharks 

they catch. 

Comment 9: NMFS should address 

the fact that recreational anglers in 

Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey are 

catching lots of pregnant thresher sharks 

during certain times of the year. 

Response: NMFS is concerned about 

recreational anglers catching pregnant 

female thresher sharks. Recreational 

fisheries do not have closed seasons like 

commercial fisheries; therefore, 

pregnant females may be caught and 

possessed by recreational anglers. 

However, a minimum size limit of 54 

inches fork-length and a bag limit of one 

shark (except bonnethead and Atlantic 

sharpnose) per vessel per trip should 

minimize the potential for negative 

impacts to populations of common 

thresher sharks. Furthermore, this 

species may be afforded additional 

protection by shark tournaments that 

limit the sharks that may be landed to 

those that are actually eligible to win a 

prize category. 

Comment 10: NMFS received a 

comment suggesting that hammerheads 

may need to be prohibited for 

recreational anglers because the IUCN 

considers them threatened and it is not 

easy to distinguish between scalloped 

and great hammerhead sharks. 

Response: NMFS is not implementing 

management measures specific to 

scalloped or great hammerhead sharks 

in recreational fisheries at this time. 

NMFS has not yet reviewed stock 

assessments on these species. A stock 

assessment has been completed for 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40679 

hammerhead sharks as a dissertation for 

a graduate student; however, the 

assessment has not undergone extensive 

peer-review which is necessary prior to 

NMFS making any decisions about or 

based on the assessment. 

The IUCN determined that the 

scalloped hammerhead is ‘‘lower risk, 

near threatened’’ with an unknown 

population trend in 1994. In 2001, the 

IUCN listed great hammerhead sharks as 

‘‘endangered’’ with a decreasing 

population trend. The recreational bag 

limit (1 vessel/day) and minimum size 

(> 54 inch fork length) should preclude 

overfishing of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark species. NMFS 

intends to improve outreach materials 

available so that recreational anglers 

would have the tools necessary to 

distinguish between scalloped and great 

hammerheads. 

Comment 11: NMFS should consider 

the impacts of recreational fishing for 

sharks and its implications on 

populations. Specific comments 

received include: shark tournaments 

since the 1980s are responsible for a 50–

percent reduction in dusky sharks and 

a 35–percent reduction in sandbar 

sharks; the stock assessment does not 

say that recreational anglers have a 

significant impact on the shark stocks; 

the recreational angling public has a 

virtually imperceptible impact on LCS 

because recreational anglers practice 

catch and release and have very 

conservative size limitations. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the 

practices of recreational fisheries and 

their impacts on shark populations. 

Recreational data have been used in past 

stock assessments for both sandbar and 

dusky sharks. Thus, the impact of 

recreational mortality on shark stocks 

has been included in these stock 

assessments. NMFS has implemented a 

size and bag limit for recreational 

fishermen to limit effort and protect 

sharks that have not reached sexual 

maturity. The Final Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP provides 

recreational landings by species. 

Comment 12: NMFS should increase 

enforcement of recreational regulations 

because participants are not adhering to 

the 54–inch minimum size for sharks. 

Response: NMFS intends to take steps 

to improve outreach to recreational 

shark anglers to ensure that the public 

is aware of all the regulations in place 

for recreational shark fisheries. 

Comment 13: NMFS should not allow 

shark tournaments that give monetary 

prizes. The impacts of such tournaments 

are unknown and public perception of 

them is poor. 

Response: HMS tournament 

participants are required to possess the 

necessary HMS permits, to register their 

tournaments, submit data if selected, 

and abide by all HMS and tournament 

regulations for sharks. The shark 

tournaments are subject to the 

recreational shark bag and size limits 

which are quite restrictive in the 

recreational fishery (1 shark over 54 

inches per vessel per day) and, 

therefore, it is not likely that the 

majority of fishing mortality is occurring 

in shark tournaments. Specific measures 

concerning tournaments were not 

proposed, or analyzed, in this 

rulemaking. 

Comment 14: NMFS should not 

propose that recreational fishermen 

cannot land sandbars and then account 

for recreational landings by removing 

the recreational landings (27 mt dw) in 

establishing the commercial quota for 

sandbar sharks. 

Response: Accounting for the 

recreational landings (27 mt dw) 

between 2003–2005 is necessary to 

ensure rebuilding of sandbar sharks and 

that all fishing mortality is within the 

TAC. Sandbar sharks can be landed in 

recreational fisheries outside of NMFS 

jurisdiction (i.e., state waters), could be 

landed illegally in federal waters, or 

may die as a result of post-release 

mortality. If NMFS did not account for 

recreational and other mortality of 

sandbar sharks, efforts to prevent 

overfishing and rebuild sandbar sharks 

would be compromised. 

Comment 15: Why were the effects of 

Katrina to the Texas recreational 

industry not analyzed? 

Response: Consistent with NS1 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is 

required to implement management 

measures to rebuild overfished shark 

species and prevent overfishing. The 

impacts to the recreational shark fishing 

industry as a result of Katrina were not 

specifically analyzed in this rulemaking. 

Rather, the impacts of the proposed 

measures that would affect the 

recreational shark fishing industry in 

states impacted by Hurricane Katrina 

were evaluated. 

Comment 16: NMFS should require 

that recreational anglers practice only 

catch and release and report any and all 

interactions with protected species. 

Response: Alternative suite 5 

proposed prohibiting the possession of 

sharks in both commercial and 

recreational fisheries, but it was not the 

preferred alternative because of the 

adverse economic impacts that would 

be incurred by these fisheries. The stock 

status of many shark species does not 

warrant a requirement to only catch and 

release all shark species landed 

recreationally. The bag limit and 

minimum size requirements are 

sufficient to conserve shark stocks, and 

NMFS does not believe a prohibition on 

landing all sharks in recreational 

fisheries is warranted at this time. 

Comment 17: A typo was made 

regarding allowable recreational species. 

On the HMS website copy of the 

proposed Amendment, the spinner 

shark was included on the recreational 

list. On a slide prepared for the public 

hearings, which was formerly posted on 

the HMS website, the spinner shark was 

not included on the recreational list. 

NMFS should update the draft 

document on the HMS website so that 

the commenting public would have 

access to the proper information 

necessary to adequately prepare their 

comments. 

Response: The typographical errors in 

the draft Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP have been 

addressed. An errata sheet describing 

these errors was posted to the HMS 

website on November 19, 2007, prior to 

the end of the public comment period 

and is available at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/sharks/ 

Amendment%202/ErratalSheetl

forlDEIS.pdf. 

Comment 18: NMFS should consider 

the cumulative impacts on CHB 

operators who also fish for sharks in 

light of measures that have been 

imposed on this industry for other 

fisheries such as snapper. Snapper 

business is down 75–percent and 

proposed measures for the shark 

recreational fishery are ‘‘the nail in the 

coffin for CHB’’; and, NMFS is violating 

NEPA by limiting recreational 

alternatives and through limited 

cumulative impact analysis by not 

analyzing impacts such as those caused 

by red snapper regulations. 

Response: NEPA requires all Federal 

agencies to consider and analyze a range 

of alternatives to achieve the stated 

objective and analyze cumulative 

impacts of proposed actions. NMFS 

considered the cumulative impacts by 

analyzing permits that participants held 

in other fisheries and considering the 

impacts on those other fisheries. Based 

on public comment, NMFS is modifying 

the shark species that can be retained by 

recreational anglers to include all nonridgeback LCS and tiger sharks. This 

modification should allow CHB 

operators to continue to retain blacktip, 

spinner, finetooth, and bull sharks 

which had originally been proposed to 

be prohibited for recreational anglers 

due to concerns about anglers’ ability to 

positively identify these species. 

Comment 19: Party charter operators 

have to submit Vessel Trip Reports 

(VTRs) for every trip. NMFS should look 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40680 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

into those to get a handle on 

recreational catches. 

Response: VTR data were considered 

for the final rule, however, these data 

showed only four porbeagle sharks 

landed by party headboats. MRFSS and 

LPS are the only databases that NMFS 

has to track recreational landings. 

However, for some species, like 

porbeagle sharks, the timing of these 

programs do not necessarily capture 

when porbeagle sharks are caught by 

recreational fishermen in New England. 

As such, NMFS is considering ways to 

improve its recreational landings data 

collection. NMFS is interested in 

gathering more shark landings data from 

tournaments with prize categories for 

sharks, especially porbeagle sharks. 

Comment 20: NMFS received 

numerous comments, including one 

from the South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources, stating that NMFS 

should increase the retention limit for 

Atlantic sharpnose per vessel in the forhire fishery. Recreational fishermen 

cannot avoid sharpnose sharks and the 

recent stock assessment declared that 

they were not overfished or subject to 

overfishing. 

Response: Modifying the retention 

limits for Atlantic sharpnose was not 

considered in this amendment. 

Measures concerning Atlantic sharpnose 

sharks and other small coastal sharks 

(SCS) will be included in Amendment 

3 to the HMS FMP based on recent 

(2007) stock assessments for SCS (May 

7, 2008, 73 FR 25665). 

10. SAFE Report and Stock Assessment 

Frequency 

Comment 1: NMFS should implement 

the preferred alternative 9 for SAFE 

report frequency, which would allow 

NMFS to publish a SAFE report by the 

fall of each calendar year. 

Response: NMFS is implementing 

alternative 9, which modifies the 

existing regulations by requiring the 

publication of a SAFE report in the fall 

of each year. This should allow NMFS 

more flexibility to balance other 

responsibilities throughout the calendar 

year, as necessary, and will give NMFS 

the opportunity to include data for the 

SAFE report that is typically collected at 

the beginning of each calendar year. 

Comment 2: Within the annual SAFE 

report, NMFS needs to correctly identify 

the overfished and overfishing status of 

every managed shark species by species, 

rather than by complex. 

Response: The SAFE report follows 

the guidelines specified for NS2 and is 

used by NMFS to develop and evaluate 

regulatory adjustments under the 

framework procedure or the FMP 

amendment process. Within each SAFE 

report, NMFS lists the status 

determination of each stock. If the stock 

is managed within a species complex, 

then NMFS would report the status of 

the complex. For sharks, NMFS does not 

have the necessary information to 

conduct separate stock assessments for 

each species. Therefore, NMFS cannot 

make species-specific stock status 

determinations for every species of 

shark that is commercially harvested. 

Therefore, those species are managed 

within a species complex. NMFS is 

moving towards more species-specific 

management as available data allows, as 

is the case with sandbar sharks, which 

will be managed separately from the 

LCS complex based on measures 

implementing the Final Amendment 2 

to the Consolidated HMS FMP. 

Comment 3: NMFS should implement 

the preferred alternative 7 for shark 

stock assessments, which would allow 

NMFS to conduct shark stock 

assessments at least once every five 

years. 

Response: Because of the time 

necessary to modify management 

measures consistent with stock 

assessments, NMFS is implementing the 

preferred alternative 7 and will conduct 

shark stock assessments at least once 

every five years. This should provide 

sufficient time for existing or 

forthcoming management measures to 

take effect (i.e., a few years) prior to the 

next stock assessment. 

Comment 4: NMFS received several 

comments in favor of the status quo for 

timing of stock assessments, including: 

NMFS should consider keeping the 

status quo for the timing of stock 

assessment for sharks; we are opposed 

to having an assessment at least once 

every five years; five years is too long 

to wait for an assessment; it is critical 

that stock assessments be regular and 

robust; NMFS should implement 

alternative 6, the status quo for the 

timing of shark stock assessments, with 

a mandate of stock assessments no less 

frequently than every 3 years; and, stock 

assessments should occur at least every 

2 to 3 years without any further delays. 

Response: Because of the time 

necessary to modify management 

measures consistent with stock 

assessments, NMFS is finalizing 

measures that increase the amount of 

time between stock assessments to allow 

existing or forthcoming measures to be 

in place and have an effect on the 

population before the next assessment 

takes place. In 2003, NMFS adopted the 

SEDAR process for completing shark 

stock assessments at the request of 

industry, environmentalists, and 

academics. This process increases the 

time necessary to complete a stock 

assessment because it entails three 

workshops where data are reviewed, 

stock assessment models are run, and 

results are reviewed by an outside 

panel. Since this process alone may take 

over a year to complete, conducting 

assessments every 2 to 3 years is not 

practical. Allowing stock assessments to 

be conducted at least once every five 

years should allow research suggested 

by the last assessment to be completed 

before the next assessment is done, thus 

providing the necessary data for future 

assessments. It should also allow 

management measures, which need to 

be in place for several years to have an 

effect, to begin to achieve management 

objectives before a new assessment is 

done. For instance, the last stock 

assessment, which was completed in 

2006, included data through 2004. 

NMFS is currently developing 

management measures based on that 

assessment, and those new management 

measures would be in place 30 days 

after publication of this rule. If the next 

stock assessment is conducted in 2009 

(3 years from 2006), and includes data 

up through 2007 or 2008, the new 

management measures would not have 

had time to take effect as they would not 

have been in place for the time series of 

data used for a 2009 assessment. 

Decreasing the frequency to at least once 

every five years would result in the next 

assessment occurring no later than 2011, 

which could consider data up through 

2009 and data collected under the new 

management measures. 

Comment 5: The Georgia Coastal 

Resources Division believes that while 

conducting assessments every 2–3 years 

is too short for an accurate assessment, 

conducting stock assessments every five 

years is also too frequent for the 

rebuilding timeframes necessary for the 

concerned species and to evaluate the 

effects of management. 

Response: Alternative 7 changes the 

current process outlined in the 1999 

FMP by requiring stock assessments for 

sharks at least every five years instead 

of every two to three years. Stock 

assessments could occur more 

frequently; however, according to 

NMFS’ policy adequate stock 

assessments are required at least once 

every five years. This timeframe ensures 

that NMFS can incorporate new data, 

use the best available data, and test the 

effectiveness of management measures. 

Waiting more than five years to conduct 

an assessment could lead to the need for 

greater changes leading to more 

uncertainty in the status of the stock 

and effectiveness of management. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40681 

11. Research Fishery/Preferred 

Alternative 

Comment 1: NMFS should not 

finalize the proposed preferred 

alternative suite 4. The sandbar shark 

quota should be spread over 40 50 

vessels making 1–2 trips annually rather 

than 5–10 vessels making more trips. 

Response: The final action strikes a 

balance between positive ecological 

impacts that must be achieved to 

rebuild and stop overfishing on 

depleted stocks while minimizing the 

severity of negative economic impacts 

that could occur as a result of these 

measures. NMFS intends to address 

vital research concerns via the shark 

research fishery. By allowing a limited 

number of historical participants to 

continue harvesting sharks, NMFS 

ensures that data for stock assessments 

and life history samples will continue to 

be collected. The final action also 

allows a small pool of individuals to 

continue to collect revenues from sharks 

as they have in the past. Increasing the 

number of vessels included in the shark 

research fishery would simply provide a 

much smaller benefit for a larger pool of 

individuals. Furthermore, having fewer 

vessels involved in the research fishery 

ensures less variation among vessels 

and also maintains more consistent 

sampling protocols. Fewer vessels in the 

research fishery would also allow each 

vessel to make more sets targeting 

sandbar sharks throughout the year and 

within each region rather than a larger 

number of vessels only making one or 

two trips in a particular region/season. 

The selection process will take place 

each year in order to maximize the 

number of potential participants. 

Comment 2: NMFS received several 

comments on research fishery vessel 

selection. These comments included: 

NMFS should select vessels based on a 

fisherman’s income from the shark 

industry; NMFS should consider if a 

fisherman has helped with research in 

the past and consider whether or not the 

researchers had a positive experience; 

NMFS should consider any past 

violations, and if a vessel is conducive 

to research (i.e., enough deck space); 

captains and crew should have an 

understanding of why the research is 

being done, an understanding of the 

costs associated with the research, the 

ability to fish in multiple regions, and 

the ability to carry observers; past 

participation in the observer program 

and shark fishery should be considered; 

NMFS should create a point system 

based on criteria for selection of vessels 

and if there are more than 5–10 vessels, 

then a lottery should be used; NMFS 

should administer the research fishery 

much like they do the EFP program; the 

shark research fishery should only 

include directed shark permit holders; 

NMFS should increase the number of 

vessels in the research fishery and 

decrease the amount of sandbars each 

vessel may land; observer coverage 

should still happen within the research 

fishery; NMFS needs to provide 

clarification as to how vessels will be 

selected to participate in the shark 

research fishery included in the 

preferred alternative; and who will pick 

the fishermen for the research fishery? 

Response: Applications and permits 

for the shark research fishery will be 

administered through the HMS 

Exempted Fishing Permit program. The 

HMS Management Division will 

coordinate with NMFS scientists to 

determine research objectives. NMFS 

will publish an annual notice in the 

Federal Register that describes the 

expected research objectives, number of 

vessels needed, selection criteria, and 

the application deadline. Requested 

information could include, but is not 

limited to, name and address, permit 

information, number of expected trips to 

collect sharks, regions where fishing 

activities would occur, vessels 

employed, and gear used. NMFS will 

review all complete applications and 

rank vessels according to the ability of 

the vessel to meet research objectives, 

fish in the specified regions and 

seasons, carry a NMFS approved 

observer, and meet other criteria as 

published in the Federal Register 

notice. Establishing a point system or a 

lottery for selection of vessels may be 

considered as a means of selecting 

among qualified vessels interested in 

participating in a shark research fishery. 

NMFS will include the appropriate 

types of permit holders in the shark 

research fishery as determined by the 

research objectives on an annual basis. 

Comment 3: NMFS should allow 

vessels participating in the research 

fishery and collecting data to make the 

most of what they catch. 

Response: Non-prohibited sharks 

landed in the shark research fishery can 

be sold by fishermen. NMFS-approved 

observers onboard vessels in the shark 

research fishery will be authorized to 

collect any and all samples from any 

specimens retained during fishing 

activities to fulfill research goals. 

Comment 4: Quota for the research 

fishery should be equally distributed 

geographically. 

Response: NMFS will consider the 

geographic distribution of vessels 

selected to participate in the shark 

research fishery to reflect traditional 

participation by vessels targeting sharks 

and to ensure that data are maintained 

for future stock assessments. Further, 

equal geographic distribution will 

allocate economic benefits to all regions 

affected by measures in the final rule 

and ensure that samples are collected 

from sandbar and other species of 

sharks throughout their geographic 

range. 

Comment 5: NMFS should clearly 

state how the quota for sandbar sharks 

will be calculated. 

Response: The sandbar shark quota 

was determined by the TAC 

recommended by the sandbar shark 

stock assessment for the species to 

rebuild by 2070. The available quota for 

commercial shark fishermen 

participating in the shark research 

fishery (116.6 mt dw) was determined 

based on the TAC while considering 

other sources of sandbar shark mortality 

in recreational fisheries and dead 

discards that occur in other fisheries. 

This quota will be reduced to 87.9 mt 

dw through the end of 2012. Additional 

detail on these calculations may be 

found in Appendices A and C of the 

Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

HMS FMP. 

Comment 6: Is NMFS going to provide 

flexibility regarding when and where 

vessels fish? 

Response: Research vessels will have 

some flexibility with regard to timing of 

trips subject to the objectives and needs 

of the research fishery. Vessels selected 

for, and fishing under, the auspices of 

the shark research permit will be 

required to take a NMFS-approved 

observer on all trips. Therefore, observer 

availability may limit timing of 

individual trips by vessels. Similarly, 

NMFS intends the quota available for 

the shark research fishery to last 

throughout the year so that samples are 

collected from vessels fishing in all 

regions and seasons. As such, NMFS 

may not place observers on all trips that 

vessel operators of qualified vessels 

request to ensure that the sandbar 

research and the non-sandbar LCS 

research quotas, neither of which have 

regions, are available throughout the 

year. The number of available trips 

targeting sharks will be dependant on 

retention limits, success of other vessels 

targeting sharks, available quota, and 

other considerations. 

Comment 7: NMFS received several 

comments on research fishery goals and 

science, including: NMFS should 

describe its data and research needs; a 

research plan needs to be developed; a 

research plan should be devised first 

before the vessels/fishermen are 

selected; and the design of the sandbaroriented research fishery requires 

scientific input and oversight in order to 

fulfill a research mission. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40682 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: The research goals and 

objectives for the shark research fishery 

are being developed with NMFS 

scientists. Research objectives may vary 

from year-to-year, depending on 

scientific needs. Several research needs 

were identified by the peer-reviewers 

during the LCS stock assessment in 

2006 and provide the basis for the shark 

research fishery goals for 2008, as 

outlined in the FEIS. Available data on 

LCS are also presented in the data 

workshop summary report which is 

located on the SEDAR website: (http:// 

www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/

SedarlWorkshops.jsp?

WorkshopNum’11). Each year, the 

objectives will be published and made 

available to the public in conjunction 

with the Federal Register notice that 

solicits applications from fishermen 

interested in participating in the shark 

research fishery. Research topics may 

include, but are not limited to: target 

and bycatch rates using circle and Jhooks with unique bait combinations; 

sandbar age at first maturity and 

maturity ogive (which is a description of 

the proportion of the individuals that 

are mature at a given age); reducing 

bycatch rates of protected resources and 

prohibited sharks; and, life history of 

coastal sharks. 

Comment 8: NMFS received several 

comments about which permit holders 

should be able to participate in the 

shark research fishery, including: the 

research fishery should include CHB 

permit holders and NMFS should not 

allow incidental permit holders to apply 

for the research fishery. 

Response: The research fishery might 

include any types of HMS permits, 

including CHB permits, depending on 

the research objectives for a given year. 

These objectives, and the types of 

vessels that will be considered, will be 

published annually in advance of 

research activities so that fishermen 

with the appropriate permits may apply. 

Some of the objectives for the research 

fishery are to continue to collect 

sandbar shark landings data to ensure 

consistent time-series data for future 

stock assessments and to answer 

specific research questions concerning 

shark life history and mechanisms to 

reduce bycatch, among others. 

Incidental permit holders have 

contributed to limited landings of 

sandbar sharks in the past; therefore, 

some landings data for sandbar sharks 

from incidental permit holders in the 

shark research fishery may be 

warranted. 

Comment 9: NMFS should not 

implement a research fishery because it 

will take quota away from U.S. 

fishermen. 

Response: Quota will not be taken 

away from U.S. fishermen as a result of 

the shark research fishery; however, a 

reduced quota consistent with the 

recommended TAC will be 

implemented in this final rulemaking. 

All of the available sandbar shark quota 

will be harvested in the shark research 

fishery. Interested U.S. fishermen will 

have the opportunity to apply for, and 

participate in, this fishery which will 

allow fishermen to harvest and sell 

sandbar sharks. 

Comment 10: The research fishery 

should be limited in its first year (maybe 

25–percent of the sandbar quota) so 

NMFS could figure out how the research 

fishery process would work. For the rest 

of the fishery, fishermen could then 

land some sandbars. 

Response: There is a limited amount 

of sandbar shark quota available 

compared to previous years because 

NMFS is implementing a TAC and 

commercial sandbar quota that are 

consistent with the 2005/2006 sandbar 

shark stock assessment. Overharvests of 

sandbar sharks from 2006 and 2007 

must also be accounted for, resulting in 

an adjusted commercial sandbar quota 

of 87.9 mt dw between 2008–2012. 

Allocating a small portion of this 

reduced quota to fishermen outside the 

shark research fishery would reduce the 

quota available for the research fishery, 

limiting NMFS’ ability to achieve 

research objectives. 

Comment 11: There is an 

inconsistency in alternative suite 4 

regarding the number of vessels that 

would be allowed to participate in the 

research fishery. In Chapter 2, it was 

stated that ‘‘[NMFS] is not certain 

regarding the number of vessels that 

may participate in the shark research 

fishery’’ (pg 2-8), yet in Chapter 4 (pg 4- 

77), it states ‘‘NMFS scientists and 

managers would select a few vessels 

(i.e., 5-10) each year to conduct the 

prescribed research.’’

Response: NMFS is not certain of the 

exact number of vessels that would be 

selected for the research fishery. The 

number of vessels selected depends on 

research objectives, the number of 

vessels that qualify to participate in the 

shark research fishery, and quota 

available. Inclusion of five to ten vessels 

in the draft documents associated with 

the proposed rule provided the public 

with an estimate of how many vessels 

may be needed, given historical 

retention limits and proposed 

commercial quotas, for the shark 

research fishery. 

Comment 12: The Georgia Department 

of Coastal Resources supports 

alternative suite 4 but thinks that 

unclassified sharks should be grouped 

as ridgeback and non-ridgeback. 

Response: NMFS proposed counting 

unclassified sharks as sandbar sharks in 

the draft Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP to provide an 

incentive for shark dealers to properly 

identify the sharks they purchase to the 

species level. Since the commercial 

quota for sandbar sharks is the lowest, 

NMFS had proposed an approach that 

would ensure that overfishing of 

sandbar sharks did not occur by 

providing an incentive for shark dealers 

to properly identify what they purchase 

and not list sharks as unclassified. 

However, NMFS is concerned that too 

many unclassified sharks being counted 

as sandbar sharks may fill the sandbar 

quota and close the shark research 

fishery prematurely. NMFS will use 

observer reports from outside the 

research fishery to determine species/ 

complex (i.e., non-sandbar LCS, SCS, 

pelagic sharks, sandbar sharks) from 

which the unclassified sharks should be 

deducted. This should result in 

unclassified sharks being counted from 

a more appropriate assemblage than 

assuming all unclassified sharks are 

sandbar sharks and may result in the 

shark research fishery staying open for 

a longer period of time. 

Comment 13: NMFS should 

implement alternative suite 4 because it 

will greatly improve data collection 

prior to the next SEDAR for LCS. It will 

help re-analyze the life history of 

sandbar sharks, especially. 

Response: NMFS prefers alternative 

suite 4 because it implements a shark 

research fishery that should provide a 

limited number of fishermen with the 

economic incentive to collect valuable 

scientific data on sharks for NMFS. 

NMFS will attain information from this 

research that will help future stock 

assessments fill in some of the data gaps 

that previous stock assessments have 

identified. 

Comment 14: Alternative suite 4 

allows fishing to continue for shark 

species without having adequate 

information to responsibly do so. NMFS 

should limit shark fishing activities 

until the status of remaining (all sharks 

but sandbar, dusky, porbeagle) sharks 

has been determined. 

Response: NMFS is implementing 

measures that should reduce fishing 

mortality of sharks significantly while 

collecting data for future stock 

assessments. Without this data, NMFS’

ability to conduct future stock 

assessments would be hampered. 

Currently, NMFS and other 

collaborating fishery management 

entities have completed stock 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40683 

assessments for all the shark species 

that have ample data available. 

Comment 15: NMFS should not 

implement a lethal sandbar research 

fishery. NMFS should implement a tag 

and release research fishery. 

Response: It is not possible to gather 

all the necessary biological samples, 

including reproductive organs and 

vertebrae, without some shark mortality. 

Commercial fishermen also need some 

incentive to participate in the shark 

research fishery as no other 

compensation would be provided. 

Therefore, the shark research fishery 

will allow data collection and the sale 

of animals collected to reduce dead 

discards and waste. 

Comment 16: NMFS should address 

bycatch in alternative suite 4. This 

alternative suite is not adequate to 

ensure the recovery of depleted sandbar 

and dusky sharks. 

Response: This final action should 

ensure that fishing effort targeting 

sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS is 

reduced, consistent with stock 

assessment recommendations. This 

reduction in fishing effort should result 

in reductions in bycatch and target 

catch. Landings of sandbar sharks are 

expected to decrease by 80–percent. 

Discards of dusky sharks are expected to 

decrease by 74–percent. Modifications 

to retention limits, quotas, and 

authorized species in commercial and 

recreational fisheries are expected to 

decrease bycatch and landings of target 

species to a level that is consistent with 

recommendations of the 2005/2006 LCS 

stock assessment and provides a 

mechanism for rebuilding of sandbar 

and dusky sharks. 

Comment 17: Alternative suite 4 

could shift effort to SCS and pelagics. 

Response: Fishing effort directed at 

SCS and pelagics may increase; 

however, these quotas are traditionally 

not fully utilized and are not being 

modified at this time with the exception 

of porbeagle sharks. The commercial 

quota for porbeagle sharks is being 

established, based on historical 

commercial landings, to prevent fishing 

effort from increasing while the stock is 

being rebuilt. Should fishing effort 

increase to the extent that the best 

available science indicates overfishing 

is occurring or stocks are overfished or 

approaching an overfished condition, 

NMFS will take additional action. 

Comment 18: The management 

measures in alternative suite 4 will not 

adequately prevent the quota 

overharvests that have historically 

occurred within this fishery. 

Response: Maintaining 100–percent 

observer coverage in the shark research 

fishery should enable NMFS to monitor 

landings in the shark research fishery in 

near real-time, reducing the likelihood 

of overharvests. Reducing retention 

limits outside the research fishery 

should reduce the number of nonsandbar LCS individual vessels may 

land each trip, which should prevent 

directed permit holders from targeting 

non-sandbar LCS. Instead, directed 

permit holders are anticipated to 

incidentally land non-sandbar LCS 

while they target other species. These 

measures, coupled with the fact that 

sandbar shark retention will be 

prohibited outside the research fishery, 

may reduce the number of overall trips 

landing sharks. Lastly, ensuring that 

shark dealer reports are received by 

NMFS within ten days of the 15th or 1st

of every month should provide NMFS 

with the ability to provide more 

frequent landings updates and close the 

fishery if necessary to avoid 

overharvests. 

12. Comments on Other Alternative 

Suites and Management Measures 

Comment 1: NMFS received several 

comments on the status quo alternative 

(alternative suite 1), including: NMFS 

should maintain the status quo; and 

NMFS should implement different 

measures because the status quo clearly 

is not working and should be 

abandoned. 

Response: NMFS chose not to select 

the status quo alternative as the 

preferred alternative because it does not 

end overfishing or implement 

rebuilding plans for overfished stocks as 

required under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. NMFS is implementing alternative 

suite 4, with minor modifications based 

on further analysis and public comment, 

because it implements quotas and 

retention limits necessary to rebuild and 

end overfishing of several shark species. 

The final action maximizes scientific 

data collection by implementing a 

limited research fishery for sandbar 

sharks with 100–percent observer 

coverage. It also mitigates some of the 

significant economic impacts that are 

necessary and expected under all 

alternative suites to reduce fishing 

mortality as prescribed by recent stock 

assessments. Thus, the final action 

strikes a balance between positive 

ecological impacts that must be 

achieved to rebuild and end overfishing 

of depleted stocks while minimizing the 

negative economic impacts that could 

occur as a result of these measures. 

Comment 2: NMFS received several 

comments on alternative suite 2, 

including: NMFS should not implement 

alternative suite 2 because it does not 

allow ILAP (Incidental Limited Access 

Permit) holders to land sandbar sharks; 

NMFS should implement alternative 

suite 2 with the caveats that porbeagle 

sharks be authorized for recreational 

fishermen and sandbars should be 

allowed on PLL gear; alternative suite 2 

is more protective of sandbar sharks 

than preferred Alternative 4. 

Response: NMFS did not prefer 

alternative suite 2 because incidental 

permit holders would not be able to 

land any sharks, which could result in 

excessive dead discards. There would 

also be an increased reporting burden 

for shark dealers, which could result in 

negative economic impacts for shark 

dealers. 

Under alternative suite 2, porbeagle 

sharks would be added to the prohibited 

list for commercial and recreational 

fishing because porbeagle sharks were 

determined to be overfished based on 

the 2005 Canadian stock assessment. In 

addition, porbeagle sharks often look 

similar to other prohibited species (i.e., 

white sharks). Therefore, placing 

porbeagle sharks on the prohibited 

species list would prohibit landings and 

help rebuild this overfished species. It 

may also stop commercial and 

recreational landings of other look-alike 

shark species, such as white sharks, 

which are also prohibited. 

Alternative suite 2 is not more 

protective of sandbar sharks than 

alternative suite 4 (the final action). In 

fact, it could result in more sandbar 

shark discards compared to alternative 

suite 4 (43.2 mt dw compared to 13.1 mt 

dw). In addition, allowing directed 

shark permit holders to fish for sandbar 

sharks with PLL gear, especially in the 

mid-Atlantic closed area, could increase 

discards and overall mortality of dusky 

sharks. Thus, sandbar sharks would be 

prohibited on PLL gear under 

alternative suite 2 to offer dusky sharks 

more protection. NMFS estimated that 

prohibiting the retention of sandbar 

sharks on PLL gear under alternative 

suite 2 could reduce dusky discards to 

8.6 mt dw per year. 

This final action also reduces quotas 

and retention limits to rebuild depleted 

shark stocks and end overfishing of 

several shark species, while minimizing 

regulatory discards. In addition, the 

final action should allow for the 

collection of fishery dependent data for 

future stock assessments and biological 

samples for shark research, while also 

allowing a few shark fishermen to 

continue to fish and generate revenues 

from shark landings as they have in the 

past. 

Comment 3: NMFS received several 

comments regarding alternative suite 3, 

including: NMFS should support a yearround incidental fishery where all 

participants could keep a few sharks 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40684 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(including sandbars) to avoid dead 

discards; NMFS should eliminate the 

directed shark permit; if NMFS allowed 

a bycatch industry only, prices for meat 

might increase because there would be 

a consistent quantity of sharks yearround; alternative suite 3 is best for 

retention limits; NMFS should support 

a revised alternative suite 3 with current 

reporting requirements and no 

restrictions for recreational fishermen, 

except the current species limitations. 

Response: Positive ecological impacts 

would likely be more pronounced for 

some species under the final action 

(preferred alternative suite 4) compared 

to alternative suite 3 because discards 

should be lower under alternative suite 

4. For instance, sandbar discards under 

alternative suite 3 are estimated to be 

23.5 mt dw per year, whereas under 

alternative suite 4, they would be 

approximately 13 mt dw. In addition, 

dusky discards under alternative suite 3 

are estimated as 20.4 mt dw, whereas 

they are only 9.2 mt dw under 

alternative suite 4. Therefore, NMFS is 

implementing alternative suite 4 at this 

time. 

Economic impacts under alternative 

suite 3 would vary depending on permit 

type. For instance, the retention limits 

under alternative suite 3 are higher than 

retention limits for incidental permit 

holders under alternative suite 4 (the 

final action), possibly resulting in 

positive economic impacts for 

incidental shark permit holders. In 

addition, under alternative suite 3, 

incidental and directed permit holders 

would have the same retention limit. 

This would presumably remove the 

difference and value between permit 

types, which may benefit incidental 

permit holders, but may be detrimental 

to directed permit holders. Under the 

final action, directed and incidental 

permit holders outside the research 

fishery would have different nonsandbar LCS retention limits based on 

permit type. This would allow the 

distinction and difference in value 

between directed and incidental permit 

types to continue. In addition, directed 

and incidental permit holders outside 

the research fishery would not be able 

to retain sandbar sharks. This would 

most likely result in fishermen no 

longer directing fishing effort on sharks 

outside the research fishery, which 

could have negative economic impacts 

on these fishermen. However, unlike 

alternative suite 3, in the final action, 

there will be a small research fishery, 

which would allow a few shark 

fishermen to direct effort on sharks and 

sell their catch. This research fishery 

would also allow the continuation of 

fishery dependent data collection to 

help with future stock assessments. 

Therefore, NMFS is implementing 

alternative suite 4 at this time. 

Retention limits under alternative 

suites 3 and 4 were designed to keep the 

shark fishery open longer than it has 

been in the past. This could allow shark 

products to be available year-round, and 

possibly avoid gluts in the market, as 

were experienced in the past when a 

majority of the shark products were 

available for a short period of time. 

In addition, under alternative suites 3 

and 4, NMFS would change the dealer 

reporting requirements, requiring 

dealers to mail reports so that they are 

received by NMFS within 10 days after 

the reporting period ends. This change 

should ensure more timely reporting 

and potentially avoid overharvests. 

Under alternative suite 3, NMFS 

considered a list of species that 

recreational anglers could land; this list 

did not include blacktip, bull, or 

spinner sharks because of potential 

misidentification issues with overfished 

shark species. However, based on public 

comment, NMFS is revising this list to 

allow recreational fishermen to land 

these species. The diagnostic 

characteristic for recreational anglers 

will be the lack of an interdorsal ridge. 

Recreational fishermen would be 

allowed to land non-ridgeback LCS plus 

tiger sharks. This characteristic should 

allow fishermen to land blacktip, bull, 

and spinner sharks, but not mistakenly 

land sandbar or silky sharks, which 

have an interdorsal ridge and are often 

mis-identified as dusky sharks. 

Therefore, given public comment and 

the revision in the allowable species for 

recreational anglers, NMFS is 

implementing alternative suite 4 at this 

time. 

Comment 4: NMFS should not use the 

economic and historical significance of 

the directed fishery as a basis for 

selecting alternatives. NMFS did not 

prefer alternative suite 3 because ‘‘it 

diminishes the economic and historical 

significance of the directed fishery...’’

(72 FR 41400). 

Response: NMFS did not select 

alternative suite 3 as the preferred 

alternative because the available 

sandbar and non-sandbar LCS quota 

would have been spread out over all 

directed and incidental permit holders, 

providing an extremely limited quota to 

a large number of fishermen. As 

described above in the response to 

comment 3 in this section, NMFS did 

not think this would be the best 

approach to rebuild the fishery. In 

addition, directed permit holders would 

have had the same retention limit as 

incidental permit holders, which would 

have diminished the value of directed 

shark permits. Under the final action, 

NMFS is establishing a small research 

fishery where a small proportion of the 

directed shark fleet will be able to fish 

and harvest all shark species, except for 

prohibited sharks. In addition, NMFS 

evaluated retention limits of nonsandbar LCS for fishermen operating 

outside the shark research fishery. 

NMFS believes it is appropriate to 

preserve differences between directed 

and incidental permits and set separate 

retention limits based on permit type, 

allowing directed permit holders a 

higher retention limit than incidental 

permit holders. This affords directed 

permit holders, who presumably paid 

more for their directed shark permit and 

rely on shark products for a larger part 

of their income, a higher retention limit 

than if all permit holders had the same 

retention limit. Thus, in the final action, 

NMFS is establishing retention limits of 

33 non-sandbar LCS for directed permit 

holders and 3 non-sandbar LCS 

retention limit for incidental permit 

holders. 

Comment 5: All permit holders 

should be allowed to keep incidentallycaught sandbar sharks. NMFS should 

allow an incidental fishery, year-round, 

for all commercial permit holders. 

Response: NMFS considered an 

alternative where all fishermen would 

be able to keep incidentally caught 

sandbar sharks under alternative suite 3. 

However, NMFS is implementing 

alternative suite 4 because it establishes 

a small shark research fishery where the 

sandbar quota would be harvested. This 

research fishery was not proposed under 

alternative suite 3, which would have 

compromised NMFS’ ability to collect 

fishery dependent data needed for 

future stock assessments. This research 

fishery would allow NMFS to collect 

scientific data on sandbar sharks that is 

essential for future stock assessments. In 

addition, a few fishermen would be 

allowed to have some economic benefit 

from the sale of shark products. 

Spreading the sandbar shark quota 

among all fishermen with shark permits 

would not collect the data NMFS needs 

to produce accurate stock assessments 

and would result in low retention limits 

fleetwide. Therefore, NMFS is 

implementing alternative suite 4, which 

should end overfishing of depleted 

stocks while also mitigating negative 

economic impacts that would occur as 

a result of these measures. 

Comment 6: NMFS received several 

comments regarding alternative suite 5, 

including: NMFS should close the shark 

fishery, considering the poor status of 

most of the species in the LCS complex, 

the uncertainty of the blacktip 

assessment, and the ineffectiveness of 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40685 

NMFS shark recovery plans to date; a 

commercial fishery at this time is 

simply not acceptable; NMFS should 

support a catch, tag, and release (no 

finning) fishery only for all shark 

fisheries; NMFS should not support a 

commercial LCS fishery because it is not 

prudent or acceptable; NMFS should 

just close the sandbar and dusky 

fisheries; NMFS should be concerned 

about bycatch; NMFS should keep the 

Atlantic LCS fishery closed until more 

is known about these species; NMFS 

should narrow Alternative 5 to the 

commercial and large coastal fisheries; 

and NMFS should consider closing the 

commercial LCS fishery entirely. 

Response: NMFS does not believe that 

closing the entire shark fishery, or 

establishing a catch and release only 

fishery, is warranted at this time. In 

implementing the final action, NMFS is 

following the recommendations of these 

latest stock assessments and taking 

significant steps in this amendment to 

rebuild overfished sharks, reduce 

fishing mortality, and allow shark 

species to rebuild while minimizing 

economic impacts and achieving 

optimum yield. While alternative suite 

5 would have the most positive 

ecological impacts for sharks, protected 

resources, and essential fish habitat 

(EFH) of the alternative suites 

considered in this document, closing 

the Atlantic shark fishery would also 

incur unnecessary economic impacts on 

U.S. shark fishermen, shark dealers, 

shark tournament operators, and others 

involved in supporting industries. There 

are numerous species of shark that are 

not overfished or experiencing 

overfishing, such as the Gulf of Mexico 

blacktip sharks, and, therefore, a full 

closure of the shark fishery is not 

warranted at this time. Furthermore, by 

closing the shark fishery, NMFS would 

lose a valuable source of fishery 

dependent data (through logbooks and 

the shark BLL observer program) and 

biological samples that are essential for 

future shark stock assessments. Other 

alternative suites considered by NMFS 

would strike a balance between ending 

overfishing and allowing overfished 

shark stocks to rebuild and allowing 

some retention of sharks to meet the 

economic needs of the shark fishing 

community. 

Comment 7: NMFS should reconsider 

a ban on BLL gear to reduce landings/ 

mortality of sandbar and dusky sharks. 

The argument that more participants 

will transfer fishing effort to the gillnet 

fisheries for sharks is unpersuasive. 

Response: BLL gear is the primary 

gear used to harvest sharks by shark 

permit holders and to target non-HMS 

(i.e., snapper-grouper, reef fish, and 

tilefish). Many shark permit holders also 

maintain permits in these other nonHMS fisheries. Banning retention of 

sharks caught with BLL gear to reduce 

landings and mortality of sandbar and 

dusky sharks could result in regulatory 

discards of sharks because vessels 

deploying BLL gear in these other 

fisheries would have to discard all 

incidentally caught sharks in the pursuit 

of other non-HMS species with BLL 

gear. In addition, by banning BLL gear 

for sharks, sharks could only be 

harvested by gillnet gear, rod and reel, 

or PLL gear. Given concerns of protected 

species interactions in both the PLL and 

gillnet fisheries, NMFS concluded that 

it would not be appropriate to 

redistribute shark BLL effort into these 

fisheries. Therefore, NMFS is not 

banning BLL gear for sharks at this time. 

Comment 8: NMFS should analyze an 

alternative suite that banned 

commercial shark fisheries without 

restricting the recreational shark fishery 

to lessen economic impact, overall. 

Response: NMFS did not analyze a 

closure of only the commercial shark 

fishery, while allowing a recreational 

shark fishery to continue, due to 

concerns over equity to different sectors. 

National Standard 4 of the MSA 

requires that allocation of fishery 

resources be fair and equitable to all 

fishermen. Since shark species that are 

overfished and experiencing overfishing 

are caught both in the commercial and 

recreational fisheries, NMFS considered 

management measures that applied to 

both sectors that would help rebuild 

shark stocks and end overfishing. 

Additionally, since commercial 

fishermen may sell shark products 

where recreational fishermen cannot, 

closing the commercial shark sector 

could have the largest economic impact. 

There are also numerous species of 

shark that are not overfished or 

experiencing overfishing, and therefore 

do not warrant a full closure of the 

commercial or recreational Atlantic 

shark fishery at this time. Furthermore, 

by closing the shark fishery, NMFS 

would lose a valuable source of fishery 

dependent data (through logbooks and 

the shark observer programs) that would 

limit future shark stock assessments. 

Therefore, NMFS is implementing 

alternative suite 4. 

Comment 9: NMFS should not 

establish a small research fishery 

because it would benefit few and 

disadvantage most of the shark 

fishermen. Everyone should get a 

chance at the quota, either through 

ITQs, or by having NMFS open up the 

fishery on January 1 every year and 

allowing all fishermen to catch sharks 

until the quota has been filled. 

Response: NMFS is implementing the 

final action to allow for the collection of 

scientific data with the sandbar shark 

quota while at the same time allowing 

a few fishermen to have some economic 

benefit from the sale of sharks and shark 

products. Spreading the sandbar shark 

quota among all fishermen with shark 

permits would not foster sandbar shark 

research. While NMFS agrees that ITQs 

may be beneficial to fishermen, it would 

take NMFS several years to implement 

an ITQ system. NMFS is required to end 

overfishing and implement rebuilding 

plans for depleted shark stocks under 

the strict timeframe specified in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Due to the 

complexities and time needed to 

develop and implement ITQs, the time 

period mandated by the MagnusonStevens Act does not allow sufficient 

time to establish an IFQ or LAPP for 

sharks. However, NMFS may consider 

developing an IFQ or LAPP for sharks, 

as well as other HMS, in the future. 

Comment 10: The Georgia Coastal 

Resources Division requests that NMFS 

include an alternative that would 

eliminate gillnets because of their large 

bycatch. 

Response: In the past, shark gillnet 

fishermen have had 100–percent 

observer coverage during the Atlantic 

Right Whale calving season and 

approximately 30–percent observer 

coverage during the rest of the year; 

with observers documenting all bycatch 

on observed trips. Based on this 

observer data, compared to other gear 

types, such as PLL gear, gillnet gear has 

relatively low bycatch, with finfish 

bycatch ranging from 1.3 to 13.3–

percent and observed sea turtle and 

marine mammal bycatch of less than 

0.1–percent. Given the reduction in trip 

limits as a result of this amendment, 

and the four to six vessels that currently 

use strike or drift gillnet gear for sharks, 

NMFS does not believe there would be 

a significant increase in shark gillnet 

fishing pressure in the future and, 

therefore, NMFS does not feel it is 

appropriate to eliminate gillnets as an 

authorized gear at this time. 

Comment 11: None of the suites 

completely represent the interests of the 

fishery. 

Response: The alternative suites 

represent a range of management 

measures derived from scoping and 

public comment that could be 

considered based on stock assessments. 

NMFS assessed the impacts of the 

alternative suites, reviewed all public 

comments, and utilized the best 

available data to make a final analysis. 

NMFS is implementing alternative suite 

4 because it implements quotas and 

retention limits necessary to rebuild and 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40686 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

stop overfishing of several shark 

species. Alternative suite 4 maximizes 

scientific data collection by 

implementing a limited research fishery 

for sandbar sharks with 100–percent 

observer coverage. It also mitigates some 

of the significant economic impacts that 

are necessary and expected under all 

alternative suites to reduce fishing 

mortality as prescribed by recent stock 

assessments. Ultimately, the final action 

strikes a balance between positive 

ecological impacts that must be 

achieved to rebuild and stop overfishing 

of depleted stocks while minimizing the 

negative economic impacts that could 

occur as a result of these measures. 

Comment 12: We are concerned about 

wasteful discards under the proposed 

alternatives. NMFS should encourage 

responsible and targeted fishing by 

providing incentives for fishermen who 

can fish without discards or minimal 

discards. 

Response: NMFS believes that the 

reduced trip limits (which is 

approximately one quarter of the current 

trip limit for directed fishermen under 

the status quo) and the prohibition on 

retention of sandbar sharks outside the 

research fishery will likely result in 

directed fishermen no longer targeting 

non-sandbar LCS. Currently, most of the 

discards of dusky, sandbar, and other 

shark species come from the directed 

shark fishery. The only directed shark 

fishing that could occur under the final 

action would be within the research 

fishery. Thus, under the final action 

where most fishermen would target 

other species and only incidentally 

catch non-sandbar LCS, NMFS does not 

anticipate excessive shark discards. For 

instance, based on shark BLL observer 

program data, on average, non-shark 

BLL trips caught one sandbar shark per 

trip and 12 non-sandbar LCS. The 

retention limits of 33 non-sandbar LCS 

per trip for directed permit holders 

could allow fishermen to keep 

incidentally caught non-sandbar LCS as 

they target other species. In addition, 

these non-shark trips typically have 

much shorter soak times (2–3 hours) 

compared to shark trips (12–14 hour 

soak times). Thus, it is estimated that 

most sandbar bycatch could be released 

alive since they would be released from 

longline gear in a relatively short period 

of time. 

13. Science 

Comment 1: NMFS received several 

comments regarding the rebuilding 

timeframe for sandbar sharks stating 

that NMFS should take a more 

precautionary approach rather than the 

maximum rebuilding timeframe of 70 

years for sandbar sharks and that NMFS 

should consider a total ban on sandbar 

shark landings in all fisheries and an 

accelerated rebuilding timeframe of 38 

years. 

Response: The 2005/2006 LCS stock 

assessment discussed three rebuilding 

scenarios, including: rebuilding 

timeframe under no fishing; a TAC 

corresponding to a 50-percent 

probability of rebuilding by 2070; and a 

TAC corresponding to a 70-percent 

probability of rebuilding by 2070. Under 

no fishing, the stock assessment 

estimated that sandbar sharks would 

rebuild in 38 years. Under the NS 1 

guidelines, if a species requires more 

than 10 years to rebuild, even in the 

absence of fishing mortality, then the 

specified time period for rebuilding may 

be adjusted upward by one mean 

generation time. Thus, NMFS added a 

generation time (28 years) to the target 

year for rebuilding sandbar sharks. The 

target year is the number of years it 

would take to rebuild the species in the 

absence of fishing, or 38 years for 

sandbar sharks. NMFS determined that 

the rebuilding time that would be as 

short as possible for sandbar sharks 

would be 66 years, taking into account 

the status and biology of the species and 

severe economic consequences on 

fishing communities. This would allow 

sandbar sharks to rebuild by 2070, given 

a rebuilding start year of 2004, the last 

year of the time series of data used in 

the 2005/2006 sandbar shark stock 

assessment. Since sharks are caught in 

multiple fisheries, to meet the 

rebuilding timeframe under a no fishing 

scenario, NMFS would have to 

implement restrictions in multiple 

fisheries to eliminate mortality, such as 

entirely shutting down multiple 

fisheries to prevent bycatch. If NMFS 

were to shut down the shark fishery 

completely, such action would likely 

have severe economic impacts on the 

fishing community and it would likely 

result in difficulties for Councilmanaged and Commission-managed 

fisheries, which often catch sharks as 

bycatch. In addition, prohibiting all 

fishing for sharks would impact NMFS’

ability to collect data for future 

management. 

The assessment assumed that fishing 

mortality from 2005 to 2007 would be 

maintained at levels similar to 2004 (the 

last year of data used in the stock 

assessment was from 2004) and that 

there would be a constant TAC between 

2008 and 2070. Based in part on these 

assumptions, the assessment estimated 

that sandbars would have a 70–percent 

probability of rebuilding by 2070 with a 

TAC of 220 mt ww (158 mt dw)/year 

and a 50–percent probability of 

rebuilding by 2070 with a TAC of 240 

mt ww (172 mt dw)/year. As described 

previously, NMFS is using the 70–

percent probability of rebuilding to 

ensure that the intended results of a 

management action are actually realized 

given the life history traits of sandbar 

sharks. 

Comment 2: NMFS received a 

comment stating disagreement with the 

science that suggests there is a decline 

in sandbar sharks because the industry 

went over their quota by 300–percent in 

two weeks and therefore shark 

populations are healthy and abundant. 

Response: NMFS used the best 

available science and a rigorous SEDAR 

assessment process to make the 

determination that sandbar sharks are 

overfished. Recent landings and higher 

catch rates do not necessarily indicate 

errors in the stock assessment, or that 

the sandbar shark populations have 

recovered. Catch rates alone do not tell 

the whole story, nor do percentages 

because they may be a reflection of 

lower quotas as described in further 

detail below. Most catch rate series 

show stable or unclear trends in recent 

years, but large declines occurred in the 

late 1970s and 1980s. There has been a 

commercial quota imposed on the shark 

fishery since 1993; stable landings in 

the last decade most likely reflect the 

effect of a commercial quota, not 

necessarily a stable population. For 

instance, commercial catch declined 

from 162,000 individuals in 1989 to 

72,600 individuals in 1993 prior to 

implementation of the commercial 

quota. A 300–percent overharvest of 

LCS does not necessarily mean that 

more sharks were being caught or that 

it represents a healthy shark population; 

rather, it may be the result of 

significantly reduced LCS quotas due to 

overharvests in recent years and 

fishermen continuing to fish at effort 

levels similar to those set in 2003 and 

2004. 

Comment 3: NMFS received a 

comment stating that fishermen/dealers 

do not properly identify what they are 

catching, which may have impacted the 

results of the stock assessment. 

Response: Since 1993, speciesspecific reporting has been required for 

shark fishermen and shark dealers. 

However, some fishermen and dealers 

still report sharks in more general terms 

as ‘‘sharks’’ or ‘‘large coastal sharks’’. 

These unclassified sharks have been 

problematic for shark stock assessments. 

Fisheries observers are trained in 

species-specific identification and 

report the correct species-level data. 

Thus, NMFS uses observer data to 

determine species composition of 

unclassified sharks for stock assessment 

purposes. In addition, recognizing that 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40687 

the accuracy of stock assessments and 

management can be improved with 

correct species identification, NMFS 

established mandatory shark 

identification workshops for shark 

dealers in regulations implementing the 

Consolidated HMS FMP. The objective 

of these workshops is to reduce the 

number of unknown and improperly 

identified sharks reported in the dealer 

reporting form, and to increase the 

accuracy of species-specific dealer 

reported information, quota monitoring, 

and the data used in stock assessments. 

These workshops train shark dealers to 

properly identify Atlantic shark 

carcasses. NMFS is also developing an 

identification guide of the authorized 

species for recreational anglers. 

Comment 4: NMFS received a 

comment stating that 80–percent of the 

landings in the VIMS dataset were 

sandbar sharks. The VIMS data says 

there are no large sandbar sharks. 

However, we see large adult sandbar 

sharks all the time, and their size has 

not changed over time. 

Response: The Virginia Institute of 

Marine Science’s BLL survey examines 

catch rates for the LCS complex and 

sandbar sharks. This survey has 

sampled a set of seven stations since 

1974. Over this time, the survey has 

collected over 5,200 sandbar sharks and 

more than 6,000 LCS. Over the course 

of the study (1974–2004), both the 

sandbar shark and the LCS complex 

showed significant declines, with no 

signs of recovery for all age classes. 

Because of a number of factors 

including environmental changes, the 

gear used, random sampling scheme 

used, and experience and efficiency of 

fishermen, the number of sharks seen by 

one person or in one year may not be 

representative of the stock as a whole. 

The stock assessment included a variety 

of data sources, which taken together 

indicated a decline in the sandbar shark 

population. 

Comment 5: NMFS received several 

comments regarding the results of the 

2005/2006 LCS stock assessments, 

specifically that 1) the science used in 

the LCS assessment for 2006 was 

questionable, and the stock assessment 

needs to be re-done before Amendment 

2 is finalized, 2) the science regarding 

sandbar sharks is flawed, 3) that 

information/data was left out of the 

stock assessment, 4) that the stock 

assessment does not represent the best 

available science as indicated by the 

independent stock assessment 

specialists, and 5) that the specialists 

raised issues that needed future 

research. 

Response: The 2005/2006 LCS 

complex, sandbar, and blacktip shark 

stock assessments were conducted using 

the SEDAR process. SEDAR is organized 

around three workshops. The first is the 

data workshop, during which fisheries, 

monitoring, and life history data are 

reviewed and compiled. The second is 

the assessment workshop, during which 

assessment models are developed and 

population parameters are estimated 

using the information provided from the 

data workshop. The final workshop is 

the review workshop, during which 

independent experts review the input 

data, assessment method, and 

assessment products. All of the 

workshops are open to the public to 

ensure the assessment process is 

transparent. The review workshop panel 

consists of a chair and 2 reviewers 

appointed by the CIE, an independent 

organization that provides independent, 

expert reviews of stock assessments and 

related work. With regard to the LCS 

complex assessment, the review panel 

determined that the data utilized in the 

assessment were the best available at the 

time. For the sandbar shark assessment, 

the review panel concluded that the 

population model and resulting 

population estimates were the best 

possible given the available data. The 

review panel was also confident that the 

2005/2006 sandbar shark assessment 

produced more reliable estimates of 

stock status than previous stock 

assessments because the SEDAR stock 

assessment resulted in a more thorough 

review at all stages of the process. For 

the blacktip shark assessment in the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the review 

panel determined that the data were 

treated appropriately, were adequate for 

the models used to assess the stocks and 

represented the best estimates of 

assessment information currently 

available. As one of the Terms of 

Reference for the Review workshop, the 

review panel was asked to develop 

recommendations for future research for 

improving data collection and stock 

assessments. These research 

recommendations are customary not 

only during the review workshop but 

also during the data and assessment 

workshops and do not imply that the 

current research used in the stock 

assessment was insufficient. For a 

complete review of the documents used 

in the stock assessment, please visit 

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/ 

SedarlWorkshops.

jsp?WorkshopNum’11. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that the 

2005/2006 LCS complex, blacktip and 

sandbar shark stock assessments 

represent the best available science and 

is not re-doing the stock assessments 

before implementing management 

measures in Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP. Under the NS1 

Guidelines, if a stock is overfished, 

NMFS is required to ‘‘take remedial 

action by preparing an FMP, FMP 

amendment, or proposed regulation...to 

rebuild the stock or stock complex to 

the MSY level within an appropriate 

time frame’’ (50 CFR 600.310(e)(3)(ii)). 

Additionally, ‘‘in cases where a stock or 

stock complex is overfished, [the] action 

must specify a time period for 

rebuilding the stock or stock complex 

that satisfies the requirements of section 

304(e)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act.’’ Therefore, consistent with the 

results of the 2005/2006 LCS complex, 

blacktip and sandbar shark stock 

assessment results, the Consolidated 

HMS FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, NMFS is implementing final 

management measures to rebuild 

sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks 

while providing an opportunity for the 

sustainable harvest of blacktip sharks 

and other sharks in the LCS complex. 

Comment 6: NMFS received a 

comment stating that offers from an 

industry representative to give shark fin 

data to NMFS were refused and 

therefore historic fin data must have 

been left out of the assessment. 

Response: NMFS included all data 

from both the shark fin and carcass 

landings recorded and submitted by 

Federally permitted dealers, as required 

by the regulations at § 635.5(b)(1)(i), in 

the 2005/2006 LCS stock assessments. 

In addition, during the data workshop 

for the 2005/2006 LCS stock 

assessments, the public, including 

industry and environmental 

representatives, were invited to submit 

data in the appropriate format to be 

considered for the stock assessment. If 

the data were not submitted in the 

appropriate format for assessment 

scientists to determine the applicability 

of the data, then they were not included 

in the assessment. The public will have 

additional opportunities to submit data 

during the data workshop at the next 

LCS stock assessment. This data will be 

considered for the stock assessment 

provided that it is submitted in the 

appropriate format. 

Comment 7: NMFS should have used 

the data from the Oregon II index which 

showed that the catch per unit effort 

was increasing. 

Response: The NOAA Research Vessel 

Oregon II data was included in the 

2005/2006 LCS complex, blacktip, and 

sandbar shark stock assessments. The 

SEFSC’s Mississippi Laboratories has 

conducted standardized BLL surveys 

from the Oregon II in the Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean and Southern North 

Atlantic since 1995. The data were 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40688 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

reviewed by the indices working group 

at the data workshop. This data showed 

that blacktip shark catch rates, when 

combined with year, area, and depth as 

variables, increased in later years in the 

Gulf of Mexico and were low with 

breaks in the time series in the Atlantic 

south of 37°. The sandbar shark catch 

rates in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, 

combined with year, area, and depth, 

stayed about the same over the data time 

series. This data set was just one of 

many data sets related to abundance 

indices included in the 2005/2006 stock 

assessment. 

Comment 8: NMFS received a 

comment stating that NMFS should 

have included Mexican data of shark 

catches in the 2005/2006 LCS 

assessment. 

Response: The 2005/2006 LCS 

complex, blacktip, and sandbar shark 

assessments did include detailed 

estimates of Mexican catches of blacktip 

and sandbar shark for the period of 

1962–2000. Species composition in 

weight for different sharks taken in 

Mexican waters was estimated from the 

data given in several Mexican studies. 

These were then used to estimate the 

total weight and numbers caught of each 

species in each state. In addition, 

annual estimates from 2000–2004 of 

illegal catches of LCS from Mexican 

fishing vessels fishing in the U.S. EEZ 

were also included in the 2005/2006 

LCS stock assessments. 

Comment 9: NMFS received a 

comment stating that NMFS does not 

need to implement an amendment to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP until July 12, 

2009. 

Response: The mandate to rebuild 

overfished stocks is in section 304(e) of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act states that for 

stocks identified as overfished or having 

overfishing occurring, the Secretary of 

Commerce or the relevant Council, as 

appropriate, shall prepare a fishery 

management plan, plan amendment, or 

proposed regulations for the fishery to 

end overfishing in the fishery and 

rebuild affected stocks within one year 

of that determination. NMFS satisfied 

that timing provision: sandbar sharks 

and dusky sharks were determined to be 

overfished with overfishing occurring 

on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65086), 

and NMFS published the draft 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP on July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41325). 

NMFS notes that the 2006 MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Reauthorization Act 

amended section 304(e) to include a 

two-year timing provision for 

preparation and implementation of 

actions, and the new management 

measures contained in 2006 MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Reauthorization Act will 

be effective July 12, 2009. 

Comment 10: NMFS received several 

comments regarding conflict of interest, 

including, 1) there was a conflict of 

interest at the LCS assessment workshop 

and review workshop; 2) several 

reviewers were biased against the 

industry; 3) the stock assessment is 

fixed to give a particular outcome based 

on pressures by conservationists, and; 4) 

there are conflicts of interest between 

NMFS employees and the American 

Elasmobranch Society which should 

invalidate all studies and assessments. 

Response: NMFS does not believe that 

there was any conflict of interest on the 

part of participants or reviewers in the 

stock assessment process. The third 

workshop in the SEDAR process is the 

review workshop during which a panel 

of independent experts reviews the 

input data, assessment methods, and 

assessment products. This workshop is 

open to the public. The review 

workshop panel consists of a chair and 

two reviewers appointed by the CIE, an 

independent organization that provides 

independent, expert reviews of stock 

assessments and related work. The 

individuals appointed to the review 

panel can have no affiliation with any 

of the affected parties to the assessment, 

including government, industry, or 

advocacy groups. The review workshop 

chair is appointed by the CIE. Two 

additional reviewers, selected by the 

Shark SEDAR Coordinator for their 

expertise in shark stock assessments, 

were also included on the LCS shark 

complex review panel. The panel 

concluded that the data used in the 

analyses, the assessment approach, and 

overall conclusions of the assessment 

were valid. The panel provided no 

indication that there were any conflicts 

of interest during the assessment 

process. 

The American Elasmobranch Society 

(AES) is a non-profit organization that 

seeks to advance the scientific study of 

living and fossil sharks, skates, rays, and 

chimaeras, and the promotion of 

education, conservation, and wise 

utilization of natural resources. The 

Society holds annual meetings and 

presents research reports of interest to 

students of elasmobranch biology. 

Those meetings are held in conjunction 

with annual meetings of the American 

Society of Ichthyologists and 

Herpetologists each year at rotating 

North American venues. Membership in 

the AES is open to any person who has 

an interest in the object of AES. 

Members of AES include, but are not 

limited to, representatives from state 

and federal governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and 

academic institutions. NMFS employees 

are not restricted from participating in 

professional societies and, to the extent 

that participation aids in the 

collaboration, communication, and 

peer-reviews in the scientific endeavors 

of NOAA’s mission, employees are 

encouraged to participate. While 

participating, employees must 

differentiate between when they are 

providing their own personal opinion or 

when they are acting as a representative 

of NOAA. Therefore, participation of 

NMFS employees in AES activities does 

not necessarily constitute a conflict of 

interest. In this case, there is no 

evidence from which NMFS can 

conclude that a conflict of interest 

occurred. 

Comment 11: NMFS should assess the 

eleven prohibited LCS species 

individually and in a public forum and 

the shark stock assessments should 

break out all sharks by species, 

especially bull sharks, scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, and tiger sharks. 

Response: NMFS continues to collect 

species-specific data in support of 

species-specific stock assessments. To 

date, NMFS has conducted individual 

stock assessments for dusky, sandbar, 

blacktip, Atlantic sharpnose, finetooth, 

blacknose, and bonnethead sharks. As 

additional biological and fishery-related 

data become available, NMFS will 

conduct other species-specific stock 

assessments. 

Comment 12: NMFS possessed certain 

species-specific knowledge regarding 

blacktip sharks that it failed to produce 

for the assessment. 

Response: NMFS has included all the 

available data that were presented at the 

data workshop and has not withheld or 

failed to produce relevant datasets. 

NMFS held a data workshop for the 

2005/2006 LCS stock assessment that 

was open to the public and requested 

that participants, including industry 

and environmental representatives, 

submit any relevant data or analysis in 

the form of working documents. During 

the assessment workshop, the 

assessment scientists determined the 

adequacy and appropriateness of the 

submitted data to be included in each 

assessment. 

Comment 13: Why did the 2005/2006 

LCS stock assessment not assess 

sandbars as two separate populations, 

one in the Gulf of Mexico and one in the 

Atlantic similar to what was done for 

blacktip sharks? 

Response: During the data workshop 

portion of the LCS stock assessment, the 

life history working group looked at 

multiple studies and data sources to 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40689 

summarize life history information such 

as stock definition, age, growth size at 

maturity, and mortality for sandbar and 

blacktip sharks that was then used in 

the stock assessments for each species. 

For sandbar sharks, after considering the 

available data, the working group 

decided that the stock definition should 

be the Western North Atlantic from 

southern New England to the Gulf of 

Mexico. Tagging studies suggest that 

one stock unit exists from Cape Cod 

south down the U.S. Atlantic coast and 

into the Gulf of Mexico, extending 

around the U.S. and Mexican portions 

of the Gulf of Mexico to the northern 

Yucatan peninsula. Genetic studies 

conducted on specimens from Virginia 

waters and the Gulf of Mexico further 

support the existence of a single stock 

that utilizes the area of Cape Cod to the 

northern Yucatan peninsula. For 

blacktip sharks, conventional tagging 

evidence suggests little exchange 

between the U.S. Atlantic Ocean and 

Gulf of Mexico. Genetic heterogeneity 

and female philopatry also demonstrates 

multiple genetic reproductive stocks 

among blacktip sharks in the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic Bight. 

Therefore, blacktip sharks were divided 

into two stocks: an Atlantic stock 

defined as extending from Delaware to 

the Straits of Florida, and a Gulf of 

Mexico stock designated as extending 

from the Florida Keys throughout the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Comment 14: NMFS received a 

comment asking who the peer reviewers 

were for the 2006 dusky assessment. 

Response: In order to preserve the 

integrity of the independent review 

process of stock assessments, NMFS 

does not provide the names of the peer 

reviewers, including those used for the 

dusky shark assessment. 

Comment 15: NMFS received several 

comments regarding the continuation of 

shark data collection once Amendment 

2 is implemented, asking how NMFS 

would conduct stock assessments with 

no data from fishermen, and stating that 

NMFS should obtain more data from the 

fishermen by placing scientists on 

fishing vessels. 

Response: This final action will 

establish a small research fishery to 

harvest the entire commercial sandbar 

shark quota. Vessels operating within 

the shark research fishery can also 

retain non-sandbar LCS, SCS and 

pelagic sharks. These vessels will also 

have 100–percent observer coverage. 

Vessels operating outside of the shark 

research fishery will only be able to 

retain non-sandbar LCS, SCS, and 

pelagic sharks. The vessels outside the 

shark research fishery will continue to 

be selected for observer coverage. 

Observers provide baseline 

characterization information, by region, 

on catch rates, species composition, 

catch disposition, relative abundance, 

and size composition within species for 

the large coastal and small coastal shark 

BLL fisheries. NMFS will use observer 

data as well as logbook and shark dealer 

data and fisheries independent data to 

conduct stock assessments in the future. 

Comment 16: NMFS received a 

comment supporting stock assessments 

that occur in the United States and not 

those that occur in other countries. 

Response: To date, the United States 

has not conducted a stock assessment 

on porbeagle sharks. NMFS has 

reviewed the Canadian stock assessment 

and found that it made full use of all 

fishery and biological information 

available and therefore deems it to be 

the best available science and 

appropriate to use for U.S. domestic 

management purposes. Canada has 

conducted stock assessments on 

porbeagle sharks in 1999, 2001, 2003, 

and 2005. Reduced Canadian porbeagle 

quotas in 2002 brought the 2004 

exploitation rate to a sustainable level. 

According to the 2005 recovery 

assessment report conducted by Canada, 

the North Atlantic porbeagle stock has 

a 70–percent probability of recovery in 

approximately 100 years if fishing 

mortality is less than or equal to 0.04. 

The Canadian assessment indicates that 

porbeagle sharks are overfished 

(SSN2004/SSNMSY = 0.15 ¥ 0.32; SSN is 

spawning stock number and used as a 

proxy for biomass). However, the 

Canadian assessment indicates that 

overfishing is not occurring (F2004/FMSY

= 0.83). Based on these results, NMFS 

determined that porbeagle sharks are 

overfished, but that overfishing is not 

occurring (71 FR 65086). 

Comment 17: NMFS received a 

comment asking if shark migration 

patterns have been studied along with 

sea surface temperatures. 

Response: Sea surface temperature is 

an important physical data parameter 

that is collected during investigations of 

shark migration patterns. The data 

workshop for the 2005/2006 LCS stock 

assessment included several studies 

investigating the correlation of sea 

surface temperature and shark migration 

patterns. A summary of these studies 

and reference citations can be found in 

the SEDAR 11 final stock assessment 

report available on the HMS website at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ 

hmsdocumentlfiles/sharks.htm. 

Comment 18: Does NMFS have an 

idea of the status of common threshers? 

It seems that they are abundant. 

Response: To date, NMFS has not 

conducted a species-specific stock 

assessment for thresher sharks and their 

status in the Atlantic Ocean is 

unknown. However, commercial 

landings data compiled from the most 

recent stock assessment documents 

indicate that approximately 307,291 lb 

dw of thresher sharks have been landed 

from 2000 to 2005. Recreational 

landings data obtained from the 

recreational landings database for HMS 

indicates approximately 8,000 thresher 

sharks have been harvested in the 

Atlantic HMS recreational shark fishery 

from 1999 to 2005. 

Comment 19: NMFS should 

implement the status quo, Alternative 1, 

because this is the only viable option for 

Amendment 2 until the scientific issues 

that have been raised are addressed and 

resolved. 

Response: As described in response to 

comments 5 and 10 in this section, 

NMFS disagrees that the results of the 

LCS assessment should be put on hold 

due to concerns raised about the 

scientific validity and impartiality of 

reviewers. NMFS has carefully reviewed 

and considered all public comments 

received on the assessment and 

determined that the assessment was 

appropriate, used the best scientific data 

available, and is scientifically valid. The 

2005 Canadian porbeagle shark stock 

assessment, the 2006 dusky shark 

assessment, and the 2005/2006 LCS 

stock assessment determined that 

porbeagle, dusky, and sandbar sharks 

are overfished. Overall, the status quo 

alternative, which would maintain the 

current annual LCS quota of 1,017 mt 

dw, in conjunction with the 

management measures mentioned 

above, would have negative ecological 

impacts on sandbar, dusky and 

porbeagle sharks, as well as protected 

resources and marine mammals. The 

social and economic impacts would 

likely be neutral because current fishing 

effort would remain the same in the 

short term. In the long term, as stocks 

continue to decline, profits may 

decrease as costs associated with 

finding and catching these depleted 

stocks increases. Management measures 

are needed to rebuild overfished stocks 

and prevent overfishing consistent with 

the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. Therefore, maintaining the LCS 

quota of 1,017 mt dw would be 

inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and the recent LCS stock assessment 

that recommended a TAC of 158.3 mt 

dw for sandbar sharks in order for this 

species to rebuild by 2070. Current 

fishing effort, under the status quo 

alternative, would lead to continued 

overfishing of sandbar, porbeagle and 

dusky sharks, which would prevent 

these species from rebuilding in the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40690 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

recommended timeframe. As a result, 

rather than implementing this 

alternative, NMFS is implementing the 

quotas and retention limits necessary to 

rebuild and stop overfishing of several 

shark species while maximizing 

scientific data collection by 

implementing a limited research fishery 

for sandbar sharks. The final 

management measures also mitigate 

some of the significant economic 

impacts that are necessary and expected 

under all alternative suites 2 though 5 

to reduce fishing mortality as prescribed 

by recent stock assessments. The final 

management measures strike a balance 

between positive ecological impacts that 

must be achieved to rebuild and stop 

overfishing of depleted stocks while 

minimizing the severity of negative 

economic impacts that could occur as a 

result of these measures. By allowing a 

limited number of historical 

participants to continue to harvest 

sandbar sharks within the research 

fishery, NMFS ensures that data for 

stock assessments and life history 

samples would continue to be collected. 

Directed permit holders not selected to 

participate in the shark research fishery 

would still be authorized to land 33 

non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip and 

incidental permit holders would be 

authorized to land 3 non-sandbar LCS 

per trip. This should limit the number 

of trips targeting non-sandbar LCS 

sharks; however, it should still afford 

the opportunity to keep non-sandbar 

LCS that are landed incidentally, 

preventing excessive discards. 

Comment 20: The stock assessment is 

flawed because sandbar sharks do not 

occur west of Mobile, Alabama. 

Response: The stock assessment 

represents the best available science and 

included all data that was presented at 

the Data Workshop for the 2005/2006 

LCS stock assessment. Included in the 

assessment are fishery independent 

shark surveys that were conducted from 

1995–2005 from the NOAA Research 

Vessel Oregon II. The results of that 

survey can be found in LCS05–06–DW–

27. This survey showed the capture of 

sandbar sharks in the Gulf of Mexico, 

including west of Mobile, Alabama (see 

Figure 4 within LCS05–06–DW–27). 

14. National Standards 

Comment 1: The proposal to prohibit 

blacktip sharks in the recreational 

fishery violates NS2 of the MagnusonStevens Act because the stock 

assessment determined that blacktip 

sharks in the Gulf of Mexico are not 

overfished. 

Response: NS2 requires that 

conservation and management measures 

be based upon the best scientific 

information available. NMFS believes 

that the 2005/2006 LCS stock 

assessment constitutes the best available 

science. The 2005/2006 LCS complex, 

sandbar, and blacktip shark stock 

assessments were conducting using the 

SEDAR process. SEDAR is organized 

around three workshops. All of the 

workshops are open to the public to 

ensure that the assessment process is 

transparent. The review workshop panel 

consists of a chair and 2 reviewers 

appointed by the CIE, an independent 

organization that provides independent, 

expert reviews of stock assessments and 

related work. With regard to the LCS 

complex assessment, the review panel 

determined that the data utilized in the 

assessment were the best available for 

analysis at the time. For the sandbar 

shark assessment, the review panel 

concluded that the population model 

and resulting population estimates were 

the best possible given the available 

data. The review panel was also 

confident that the 2005/2006 sandbar 

shark assessment produced more 

reliable estimates of stock status than 

previous stock assessments because the 

SEDAR stock assessment resulted in a 

more thorough review at all stages of the 

process. For the blacktip shark 

assessment in the Atlantic Ocean and 

Gulf of Mexico, the review panel 

determined that the data were treated 

appropriately, were adequate for the 

models used to assess the stocks and 

represented the best estimates of 

assessment information currently 

available. 

In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed 

an authorized recreational species list 

that was limited to those species that are 

easy to identify or that could not be 

misidentified with other species. NMFS 

originally proposed to prohibit the 

retention of blacktip sharks because of 

the potential for misidentification with 

spinner sharks, but specifically asked 

for public comment on the proposed list 

of prohibited species. As a result, based 

on public comments received and 

because blacktip sharks are healthy in 

the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS is 

implementing an amended authorized 

shark species list in the recreational 

fishery. The amended list is based on 

readily identifiable characters such as 

the lack of an inter-dorsal ridge, and 

allows the landing of non-ridgeback LCS 

plus tiger sharks. This amended list 

adds blacktip, spinner, finetooth, 

porbeagle and bull sharks to the list of 

authorized species for recreational 

anglers in all regions. 

Comment 2: NMFS violated NS4 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act because the 

commercial fishery will be allowed to 

catch their TAC and the recreational 

fishery cannot catch the same species of 

sharks. 

Response: NS4 requires that 

conservation and management measures 

shall not discriminate between residents 

of different States, not between 

participants in different fisheries. The 

commenter is concerned about 

perceived discrepancies between 

allocations to the recreational versus 

commercial fisheries, which is not a 

NS4 issue. Based on public comments, 

NMFS is modifying the list of 

authorized species in the recreational 

shark fishery to address concerns 

expressed by certain states that 

prohibiting blacktip and other sharks 

would unfairly discriminate against the 

recreational fishery. This amended list 

more closely aligns with the authorized 

species in the commercial fishery. 

NMFS would continue to prohibit 

sandbar and silky sharks in the 

recreational fishery due to concerns of 

misidentification with dusky sharks and 

because sandbar sharks are overfished. 

However, most of the commercial sector 

will not be able to retain sandbar sharks 

unless fishermen participate in the 

shark research fishery. Thus, other than 

in the shark research fishery, NMFS is 

prohibiting the retention of sandbar 

sharks in both the commercial and 

recreational sectors. 

Comment 3: NMFS violated NS8 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act because Port 

Aransas is a fishing community and was 

not treated as such in the analysis. 

Response: NS8 requires that 

conservation and management measures 

shall, consistent with the conservation 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (including the prevention of 

overfishing and rebuilding of overfished 

stocks), take into account the 

importance of fishery resources to 

fishing communities in order to (A) 

provide for the sustained participation 

of such communities, and (B) to the 

extent practicable, minimize adverse 

economic impacts on such 

communities. NMFS recognizes the 

importance of Port Aransas, TX and 

numerous other communities as fishing 

communities. A social impact and 

community profile assessment was 

completed for the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP. While this community 

profile assessment did not focus on Port 

Aransas, TX, Chapter 9 of the 

Consolidated HMS FMP includes an 

analysis of the State of Texas as a whole 

and makes note of specific fishing 

communities within the state that are 

important to HMS fishing, including 

Port Aransas, TX. Because this analysis 

was recently completed, it was not 

repeated for the Draft EIS for 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40691 

FMP; however, it was referred to in the 

Draft EIS for Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP. The Final EIS 

for Amendment 2 to the HMS FMP 

includes a recently completed report by 

MRAG Americas, Inc., and Jepson 

(2008) that provides updates to the 

social impact and community profile 

assessments for HMS dependent fishing 

communities. This report can be found 

in Appendix E and includes Port 

Aransas. 

Comment 4: NMFS violated NS9 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act because all 

the proposed prohibited species will be 

released and some will die and, thus, 

bycatch will not be minimized. 

Response: NS9 says that conservation 

and management measures shall, to the 

extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch 

and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be 

avoided, minimize the mortality of such 

bycatch. The reduced commercial shark 

quotas and retention limits being 

finalized in this rule are expected to 

greatly reduce bycatch of target and 

non-target species. Because of the 

reduced retention limits outside the 

research fishery, it is likely that 

fishermen will not target non-sandbar 

LCS. In addition, retention limits under 

the final management measures are such 

that fishermen targeting non-shark 

species should be able to retain 

incidentally caught non-sandbar LCS. 

Soak times in non-shark BLL and gillnet 

fisheries are also much shorter than 

commercial shark sets; these shorter 

soak times should increase post-release 

survival of sandbar sharks. Regulatory 

discards were taken into consideration 

when determining the quotas and 

retention limits of sandbar and nonsandbar sharks both inside and outside 

of the research fishery. In addition, 

commercial fishermen using BLL and 

PLL gear are required to have specified 

safe handling and release gear on board, 

which should help release shark 

bycatch in such a manner as to 

maximize post-release survival. In the 

recreational fishery, NMFS is modifying 

the list of authorized species. This 

amended list more closely aligns with 

the authorized species in the 

commercial shark fishery. NMFS 

intends to increase educational outreach 

to the recreational fishing sector to 

increase shark identification to avoid 

misidentification with prohibited 

species. Bycatch in the recreational 

fishery is also minimized because soak 

times are considerably less than those in 

commercial fisheries. 

15. Economic Impacts 

Comment 1: NMFS should consider 

an alternative suite that incorporates a 

‘‘phase out’’ of the commercial shark 

industry. The present stock situation is 

untenable. Prolonged rebuilding periods 

are not acceptable. Managing a minimal 

yet unsustainable large coastal shark 

fishery violates NS1 of the MagnusonStevens Act. The costs of management 

far outweigh the benefits to a small 

number of fishermen who target sharks 

commercially. 

Response: NMFS did consider a suite 

in the Draft EIS that would have ended 

Atlantic commercial shark fishing, 

alternative suite 5. Under this proposed 

alternative, shark landings would be 

limited to research and the collection 

for public display via the HMS EFPs. 

Recreational fisheries would be catch 

and release only. However, after careful 

consideration of the other alternatives, 

this alternative suite was not selected. 

Longer rebuilding periods are allowed 

under NS1 of Magnuson-Stevens Act 

when the following conditions specified 

in the NS 1 Guidelines (50 CFR 

600.310(e)(4)(ii)(B)(3)): 

[i]f the lower limit is 10 years or greater, 

then the specified time period for rebuilding 

may be adjusted upward to the extent 

warranted by the needs of fishing 

communities....except that no such upward 

adjustment can exceed the rebuilding period 

calculated in the absence of fishing mortality, 

plus one mean generation time or equivalent 

period based on the species’ life-history 

characteristics. 

NMFS recognizes that the costs of 

managing the shark fishery relative to 

the level of future shark fishing activity 

will be high. However, there are nonmonetary benefits associated with 

maintaining a limited commercial shark 

industry. These benefits include the 

ability to continue gathering fishery 

data, maintenance of industry 

knowledge regarding shark fishing 

practices, and other potential cultural 

and social benefits. The final action 

attempts to balance the economic needs 

of fishing communities with the 

recommendations of recent stock 

assessments. BLL and gillnet gear will 

continue to be deployed in other 

fisheries that interact with sharks. 

Setting a retention limit that allows 

fishermen to keep a portion of these fish 

without targeting non-sandbar LCS 

should minimize dead discards while 

discouraging targeting of non-sandbar 

LCS. Allocating the entire sandbar shark 

quota to a shark research fishery quota 

should result in collection of data that 

could improve future stock assessments 

and the development of management 

measures for the fishery. 

Comment 2: NMFS received several 

comments regarding an industry 

buyout/buyback. These comments 

include: the environmentalists should 

fund a buyout of the commercial shark 

fishery; NMFS should consider a buyout 

to provide financial relief for the shark 

fishermen that will be put out of 

business as a result of the preferred 

alternative; NMFS should buy all of the 

directed shark permits for $50,000 to 

$100,000 because NMFS sold them to 

fishermen and created this problem; the 

industry is not in favor of a 5–percent 

tax to come up with buyout money; a 

buyout plan aimed at removing longline 

and gillnet vessels from the shark 

fishery and other fisheries would reduce 

fishing pressure, reduce bycatch and 

protected species interactions, and 

would address NMFS’ concern that 

further reducing shark landing quotas 

will result in redistribution of fishing 

effort into other equally harmful 

fisheries. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that some 

participants of the Atlantic shark fishery 

expressed interest in reducing fishing 

capacity for sharks via some form of 

buyout program. Buyouts can occur via 

one of three mechanisms, including: 

through an industry fee, via 

appropriations from the United States 

Congress, and/or funding provided from 

any State or other public sources or 

private or non-profit organizations. 

NMFS cannot independently initiate a 

buyout. Because NMFS is unable to 

implement a buyout as a management 

option, a buyout plan is not proposed in 

this amendment, despite requests for 

consideration from the HMS Advisory 

Panel and other affected constituents. 

The shark fishery did develop an 

industry ‘‘business plan’’ that examined 

options for a buyout, which is further 

described in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS. 

Comment 3: NMFS should look at 

data on the number of commercial 

permit holders by state and the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed 

measures on these fishermen. 

Response: NMFS examined the 

number of commercial permit holders 

by state. This information was presented 

in Table 9.1 of the Draft EIS. The socioeconomic impacts of the preferred 

measures were analyzed in Chapters 6, 

7, and 8 of the Draft EIS for Amendment 

2. 

Comment 4: NMFS received several 

comments concerning the potential for 

severe economic impacts associated 

with all of the alternatives considered 

(other than status quo). Comments 

indicated a concern that many 

fishermen may not be able to survive 

economically until the next stock 

assessment. One dealer for example saw 

a 75–percent decrease in revenue in 

2007 because of restrictions. The lack of 

a shark season in 2008 could bring 

about a financial collapse of the 

industry. The industry is completely 

based on sandbar sharks. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40692 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: NMFS has estimated that 

the alternatives considered, including 

the no action alternative, would result 

in economic consequences to the shark 

fishery. The severity of the economic 

consequences varies by alternative suite, 

with alternative suite 5, the complete 

closure of the Atlantic shark fishery, 

having the greatest economic impact. 

The economic impacts of the various 

alternative suites are summarized in 

Table 7.5 of the EIS for Amendment 2. 

NMFS acknowledges that dealer 

impacts could also be substantial and 

could vary significantly by dealer, 

depending upon how important sharks 

are to their operations. 

NMFS recognizes the importance of 

sandbar shark landings to the shark 

fishing sector. However, sandbar shark 

landings only comprised 30–percent of 

the estimated total value of the shark 

fishery in 2005 ($602,764 in sandbar 

shark meat and $1,181,803 in fins, 

versus a total shark fishery revenue of 

$6,027,516). 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

NMFS is required to develop 

management measures to rebuild 

overfished shark stocks and prevent 

overfishing. The final action attempts to 

balance the economic needs of 

fishermen and fishing communities 

with this requirement. 

Comment 5: NMFS should include an 

analysis of the negative economic 

impacts associated with prohibiting 

porbeagle sharks in shark tournaments, 

especially in New England. These 

tournaments have negligible impacts on 

porbeagle stocks. An example was 

provided regarding a tournament that 

has caught only 4 porbeagle sharks in 

the past 10 years. 

Response: NMFS appreciates this 

additional information regarding the 

importance of porbeagle sharks in 

tournament fisheries. Additional 

information has been incorporated into 

the final EIS for Amendment 2 to further 

address the potential economic impacts 

of a prohibition of porbeagle landings. 

Based on public comments received, 

NMFS selected an alternative suite that 

permits the recreational retention of 

porbeagle sharks. 

NMFS is reviewing existing data 

sources for recreational landings of 

porbeagle sharks. Efforts to expand 

recreational data collection may be 

necessary to improve information on 

porbeagle shark landings in recreational 

fisheries. 

Comment 6: NMFS should specify 

what the $1.8 million fishery-wide 

economic impacts include: recreational 

impacts, commercial impacts, or both. 

Recreational impacts would be 

significant if sandbar, bull, and blacktip 

are not authorized to be landed in the 

recreational fishery. NMFS has grossly 

underestimated the impact to 

recreational fishermen in this proposal. 

Response: The $1.8 million discussed 

for the final action is the estimated 

reduction in gross revenues from 

sandbar and non-sandbar LCS resulting 

from the proposed quota reductions to 

the commercial shark fishery. Impacts to 

the recreational shark fishing sector 

were also analyzed. For the final action, 

these impacts included: the negative 

economic impacts resulting from the 

reduced number of sharks that could be 

legally landed by recreational anglers, 

particularly pronounced in areas where 

blacktip sharks are frequently 

encountered. In addition, tournaments 

offering prize categories for sharks could 

also experience negative economic 

impacts as a result of not allowing six 

additional species to be retained in 

recreational fisheries. Due to a lack of 

information regarding the relative 

preferences of shark fishermen to retain 

shark species over practicing catch-andrelease shark fishing, NMFS was unable 

to quantitatively estimate the economic 

impacts of the proposed recreational 

measures restricting the authorized list 

of species that could be retained. 

The final action allows recreational 

anglers to harvest blacktip, finetooth, 

bull, spinner, and porbeagle sharks. 

Comment 7: Proposed measures will 

result in a year-round fresh shark meat 

product. Inconsistent seasons are not 

good for prices and shark meat is 

currently $0.30/lb. because the market is 

flooded so quickly and then seasons are 

over so soon. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that 

moving to one season for the shark 

fishery could alleviate some of the 

uncertainty in the market associated 

with varying shark seasons. Depending 

on the intensity of fishing effort at the 

beginning of the season, it is likely that 

the final action could result in a yearround fresh shark meat market. This 

could help improve the prices received 

for shark meat and help offset some of 

the negative economic impacts 

associated with this rule. 

Comment 8: Dealers will not likely be 

interested in continuing to buy shark 

products when the proposed measures 

go into place. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

some dealers may opt to no longer 

participate in the shark fishery. 

However, the information available to 

NMFS indicates that several shark 

dealers already handle small quantities 

of shark products and, therefore, 

changes in the shark fishery are unlikely 

to cause them to change their business 

practices. Reduced domestic harvest of 

sandbar sharks could potentially 

increase the value of harvest in the 

future due to reduced supplies. 

Furthermore, having the season open for 

a longer period of time each year, 

subject to reduced retention limits, may 

enhance the domestic shark meat 

market and increase prices. 

Comment 9: Closing fisheries 

increases the quantity of fisheries 

products imported into the United 

States and other countries do not have 

the conservation measures that are 

present in the United States. 

Response: The United States imports 

modest quantities of shark fishery 

products. According to U.S. Census 

Bureau data, the United States imported 

459 mt of shark in 2006 with an 

estimated value of $3.41 million. In 

contrast, the United States exported 

1597 mt of shark in 2006 estimated to 

be worth $6.17 million. The United 

States may be an important 

transshipment port for shark fins, which 

may be imported wet, and then 

processed and exported dried. The 

United States is, in fact, a net exporter 

of shark species. NMFS acknowledges 

that other countries may not have the 

same shark conservation measures as 

the United States. 

Comment 10: Commenters suggested 

that NMFS should implement a 

retraining program for fishermen and 

families that are displaced by this 

action. Others suggested fishermen 

reconfigure their businesses towards 

providing tourism services. 

Response: NMFS has worked with a 

number of other agencies/departments 

to explore programs that are available to 

fishermen and other businesses affected 

by fishery management measures. Some 

of these include retaining programs. 

The Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) was created to 

create new jobs and retain existing jobs 

in economically stressed communities. 

Through a series of grant programs, the 

EDA helps distressed communities 

develop strategies to improve their own 

economic situation through a 

multifaceted cooperative effort. Most of 

the EDA activity affecting the fishing 

industry has been funded through the 

EDA’s Public Works Program and the 

EDA’s Economic Adjustment Program. 

The Public Works Program has funded 

port and harbor improvements. The 

Economic Adjustment Program helps 

communities adjust to serious changes 

in their economic situation, and 

proceeds from this program are 

generally used for organization, 

business development, revolving loan 

funds, infrastructure, and market 

research. Interested parties can learn 

more about these programs, including 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40693 

eligibility requirements and contact 

information, by visiting the EDA 

website: http://www.eda.gov/. 

The U.S. Department of Labor’s 

Economic Dislocation and Worker 

Adjustment Assistance Act provides 

funds to States and local substate 

grantees so they can help dislocated 

workers find and qualify for new jobs. 

It is part of a comprehensive approach 

to aiding workers who have lost their 

jobs that also includes provisions of the 

Worker Adjustment and Retraining 

Notification Act and the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance program. 

Workers who have lost their jobs and 

are unlikely to return to their previous 

industries or occupations are eligible for 

the program. This includes workers who 

lose their jobs because of plant closures 

or mass layoffs; long-term unemployed 

persons with limited job opportunities 

in their fields; and farmers, ranchers 

and other self-employed persons who 

become unemployed due to general 

economic conditions. Services include 

retraining services, readjustment 

services, and needs-related payments. 

Interested parties can obtain more 

information about services available and 

contact information by visiting the 

following website: http:// 

www.doleta.gov/tradeact/. 

Comment 11: Commenters suggested 

that NMFS consider giving shark 

fishermen swordfish handgear permits 

in order to help offset negative 

economic impacts, while also increasing 

swordfish landings. 

Response: NMFS did not propose 

changes to the swordfish handgear 

permit system, however, NMFS will 

take this suggestion under consideration 

for future actions. NMFS notes that the 

swordfish handgear permit is a limited 

access permit. Therefore, issuing new 

swordfish handgear permits may result 

in negative economic impacts to current 

holders of swordfish handgear permits. 

In addition, NMFS has been recently 

issued new regulations to revitalize the 

swordfish fishery and may consider 

additional measures in the future 

depending on the outcome of the 

current regulatory changes. 

Comment 12: NMFS should consider 

the compound effect of this Amendment 

and the economic hardships that have 

been incurred by the Gulf of Mexico red 

snapper fishing industry. 

Response: NMFS considered the 

cumulative impact of this Amendment 

with that of other regulatory changes in 

other fisheries, including the Gulf of 

Mexico red snapper fishing industry. 

This analysis is provided in Chapter 4 

of the Draft EIS. 

Comment 13: If NMFS does not 

maintain the status quo, NMFS should 

declare an emergency disaster. 

Response: Section 312(a) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act addresses 

fisheries disaster relief. This section 

states: 

At the discretion of the Secretary or at the 

request of the Governor of an affected State 

or a fishing community, the Secretary shall 

determine whether there is a commercial 

fishery failure due to a fishery resource 

disaster as a result of natural causes, manmade causes beyond the control of fishery 

managers to mitigate through conservation 

and management measures, including 

regulatory restrictions (including those 

imposed as a result of judicial action) 

imposed to protect human health or the 

marine environment, or undetermined 

causes. 

All analyses for determinations 

(which can be at the request of a 

Governor or at the Secretary’s own 

discretion) under section 312(a) must 

undergo a three-prong test: first, the 

Secretary must determine if there has 

been a commercial fishery failure; he 

must also determine that any such 

failure is the result of a fishery resource 

disaster; finally, the cause of that 

disaster must meet the articulated 

causes outlined in the statute. 

Comment 14: NMFS should look into 

the impact of this Amendment on the 

consumer. How much will consumer 

costs increase as a result of your action? 

Response: NMFS did not focus its 

analysis of the impacts of this 

Amendment on the consumer since 

shark is primarily exported. The 

domestic consumption of shark meat 

and shark fins is limited. It is unlikely 

that reduction in the production of 

shark fin will impact consumer prices in 

the United States. The consumption of 

fresh shark meat is somewhat limited 

and is not as widespread as that of other 

fish species in the U.S. market. There 

may be some impacts to domestic 

consumers of shark, especially sandbar 

sharks, as a result of the preferred 

management measures. However, it is 

unlikely that this Amendment will 

result in significant increases in 

consumer costs, especially given the 

estimates that shark meat could be 

landed in low limits year round, unlike 

current conditions where shark meat is 

available for only several weeks each 

year. Information available on consumer 

prices for shark and domestic demand 

of shark products is limited, making it 

infeasible to conduct a more 

quantitative analysis of the impacts on 

consumers. 

Comment 15: NMFS received a 

comment questioning whether shark 

permits will still be worth anything after 

the proposed management changes take 

place. 

Response: It is uncertain what shark 

directed and incidental permits may be 

worth after the management changes 

associated with this Amendment are 

implemented. It is likely that shark 

permits may be worth less as a result of 

quota reductions and reduced retention 

limits. However, there will still be some 

demand for shark permits from new 

entrants into the commercial swordfish 

and tuna fisheries that require 

participants to hold all three HMS 

permits. 

Note that under 50 CFR 635.4(a)(3), 

‘‘Limited access vessel permits or any 

other permit issued pursuant to this part 

do not represent either an absolute right 

to the resource or any interest that is 

subject to the takings provision of the 

Fifth Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution. Rather, limited access 

vessel permits represent only a 

harvesting privilege that may be 

revoked, suspended, or amended subject 

to the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act or other applicable law.’’

Comment 16: NMFS received 

comments indicating that requiring 

fishermen to land sharks with fins on 

will change the entire pricing structure. 

NMFS could be changing the whole 

valuation process here by requiring that 

sharks have their fins on. 

Response: The requirement to land 

sharks with their fins attached allows 

fishermen to leave the fins attached by 

just a small piece of skin so that the 

shark could be packed on ice at sea 

efficiently. Shark fins could then be 

quickly removed at the dock without 

having to thaw the shark. Sharks may be 

eviscerated, bled and the head removed 

from the carcass at sea. These measures 

should prevent any excessive amounts 

of waste at the dock, since dressing the 

shark (except removing the fins) can be 

performed while at sea. While this will 

result in some changes in how 

fishermen process sharks at sea, because 

the fins can be removed quickly once 

the shark has been landed, NMFS 

expects that the market will continue to 

receive sharks in their log form. While 

there may be some changes in the way 

sharks are marketed and priced, it is 

unlikely that the total ex-vessel value of 

sharks will change significantly due to 

the requirement to land sharks with 

their fins attached. 

Comment 17: NMFS needs to reduce 

the number of limited access permits. 

Response: Reducing the number of 

limited access permits was not proposed 

for this Amendment because of the 

ramifications that such a reduction 

could have on other fisheries and the 

overall HMS permit structure. NMFS 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40694 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

chose to limit effort via management 

measures in this final rule because these 

measures can be implemented with 

greater expediency and improve the 

likelihood that fishing mortality will be 

reduced consistent with NS1. NMFS 

may consider reductions in the number 

of permits in future actions. 

16. Miscellaneous 

Comment 1: There should not be any 

netting allowed in the Delaware Bay as 

this is a nursery ground for sharks. 

Response: The waters of the Delaware 

Bay are in state waters; therefore any 

management of sharks in Delaware Bay 

is conducted by the states of New Jersey, 

Delaware, and Pennsylvania. The 

Consolidated HMS FMP only regulates 

fisheries in Federal waters. 

Comment 2: In the ‘‘old’’ MagnusonStevens Act (before reauthorization), 

there was a section indicating that if 

NMFS reduces incomes by 13–percent, 

then fishermen are supposed to receive 

due compensation. 

Response: The current MagnusonStevens Act has no such provision. 

Comment 3: NMFS should allow 

vessel owners to keep sharks that are 

dead at haulback if observers are 

onboard the vessel. 

Response: NMFS did not consider 

modifying this provision in Amendment 

2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. 

Generally speaking, the observers are 

onboard to monitor fishing activities. It 

is the responsibility of the vessel 

operator and crew, not the 

responsibility of observer, to predict 

whether or not sharks caught during 

fishing activities would survive if 

released. All sharks that are not, or 

cannot be, possessed must be released 

in a manner that would maximize their 

chances of survival. Allowing dead 

sharks to be harvested only when 

observers are onboard could potentially 

put them in more of an enforcement role 

which is not the intent of the fisheries 

observer program. Furthermore, this 

might encourage fishermen to fish in a 

different manner when observers are 

onboard. Modifying the soak time or 

types of hooks and bait deployed to 

ensure that more sharks are dead at 

haulback would not provide the 

observer program with data that is 

representative of fishing behavior when 

observers are not present. Increasing the 

number of sharks that are harvested in 

this manner may have negative 

ecological impacts on shark 

populations. 

Comment 4: NMFS should consider 

making video copies of the shark 

identification workshops, so that those 

who do not have the money to travel 

may watch the presentation. 

Response: NMFS may consider 

alternative methods for shark dealers to 

renew their shark identification 

certificates as long as the original 

objectives of the identification 

workshops are met. Alternative methods 

may include, but are not limited to, 

renewing identification certificates via 

the Internet. 

Comment 5: NMFS should manage all 

fish caught on BLL gear collectively, 

including grouper and tilefish. When 

fishing for sharks, we cannot keep 

snapper, yet we have a combined 

fishery. These should not be managed 

separately. 

Response: The HMS Management 

Division is responsible for managing 

Atlantic sharks, tunas, billfish, and 

swordfish. Currently, Fishery 

Management Councils recommend 

management measures for grouper and 

tilefish to NMFS. The relevant Council 

or Councils depends upon the specific 

region(s) involved. NMFS may consider 

more cooperative management 

initiatives in the future, as necessary. 

Comment 6: Will shark fishing be 

closed until this Amendment is 

implemented? 

Response: Fishing for large coastal 

sharks will be closed through the 

second trimester. A final rule describing 

the seasons and quota for the first and 

second trimester of 2008 was published 

in the Federal Register on November 29, 

2007 (72 FR 67580). 

Comment 7: NMFS needs to realize 

that fishermen are still going to go 

fishing for other species year-round. As 

a result, fishermen are going to end up 

killing sharks and discarding them 

dead. Another fishery is going to get 

more pressure as a result of these 

measures because shark fishermen are 

not going to stop fishing. 

Response: NMFS understands that 

participants in the shark fishery also 

participate in numerous other fisheries. 

Reductions in fishing mortality that 

result from this amendment will likely 

result in fishing effort shifting from the 

shark fishery to other fisheries in which 

participants maintain permits. Reduced 

retention limits and the fact that 

sandbar sharks will only be landed in 

the shark research fishery are expected 

to result in trips targeting other species. 

NMFS has devised retention limits and 

seasons such that fishermen targeting 

other non-shark species will be able to 

possess a limited number of nonsandbar LCS incidentally, minimizing 

the need to discard sharks dead. 

Comment 8: NMFS should clarify 

what the gear limitations within the 

shark research fishery are and whether 

or not participants would be able to 

possess sandbar sharks if they have an 

observer onboard. 

Response: Gear limitations within the 

shark research fishery will depend on 

annual research objectives. An objective 

of the shark research fishery is to 

continue to collect fishery-dependent 

data that reflects how the fishery 

operated historically. Therefore, BLL 

gear will likely be the predominant gear 

deployed. However, research objectives 

might also require participants to 

deploy alternative gear types to discern 

their feasibility and impacts on target 

and non-target catch. Vessels issued a 

shark research permit will only be able 

to possess sandbar sharks when they 

have a NMFS-approved observer 

onboard. 

Comment 9: NMFS should not require 

fishermen to fill out a logbook when 

they only use dealer data. Instead of 

logbooks, NMFS should use carbon 

copies of trip tickets that are submitted 

to dealers. 

Response: NMFS uses logbook data in 

addition to data collected from dealer 

reports. Logbooks provide vessel 

specific landings and effort data that are 

not reflected in shark dealer data. These 

data can be used by managers and 

scientists in a variety of ways to aid in 

managing and understanding the 

fishery. Sharks dealer data are used 

specifically for quota monitoring and 

stock assessments but are often 

combined and used with logbook data 

for other management purposes. 

Comment 10: NMFS should consider 

reducing soak time as a means of 

reducing the number sandbar shark 

dead discards. 

Response: NMFS has examined the 

regulation of soak times to reduce 

fishing mortality and dead discards, 

however, NMFS found that it would be 

extremely difficult to monitor and 

enforce soak times. 

Comment 11: NMFS should consider 

placing observers on all vessels and 

letting all fishermen continue to fish for 

sharks. That is how NMFS will get 

accurate data. 

Response: NMFS is requiring that 

observers are present on all trips within 

the shark research fishery. A limited 

number of vessels selected to participate 

in the research fishery will continue to 

able to fish for sharks, including 

sandbar sharks, subject to available 

quota. NMFS is also attempting to 

maintain adequate observer coverage 

outside the research fishery. 

Comment 12: These measures will 

cause a large increase in dead discards, 

which equals wasted fish and wasted 

money. 

Response: The final action effectively 

creates an incidental fishery for sharks. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40695 

The allowance for incidental landings 

and seasons that are open longer than 

they have been historically should 

minimize a large increase in dead 

discards. Dead discards could 

potentially increase if there were a 

reduced retention limit or if the shark 

season were closed for extensive periods 

during which all sharks would be 

discarded at sea. 

Comment 13: NMFS should consider 

physically enhancing habitat to protect 

these species. 

Response: Habitat enhancement does 

not address removal of sharks. Existing 

fishing mortality levels for sandbar and 

dusky sharks indicate that these species 

are experiencing overfishing and that 

the stocks have been overfished. Habitat 

enhancement was not considered in this 

action because, in isolation, it does not 

address overfishing or rebuilding of 

overfished stocks. 

Comment 14: NMFS should require 

shark fishermen to take the shark dealer 

identification course. 

Response: The public, including shark 

fishermen, is welcome to attend the 

shark identification courses provided by 

NMFS. It is currently voluntary for 

shark fisherman to participate in shark 

identification courses. NMFS wants to 

ensure that shark dealers are aware of 

how to properly identify sharks because 

NMFS uses information from shark 

dealer reports to monitor the quota 

during the fishing season. Further, shark 

dealer reports play a critical role in 

conducting stock assessments. NMFS 

may consider expanding the groups of 

participants required to complete these 

workshops in the future. 

Comment 15: The Magnuson-Stevens 

Act says to rebuild overfished stocks by 

2012. NMFS should not use rebuilding 

schedules that require hundreds of 

years. 

Response: Longer rebuilding periods 

are allowed under NS1 of MagnusonStevens Act when the following 

conditions specified in the NS1 

Guidelines are met, which is the case 

with the species that are being rebuilt in 

this amendment. The regulatory text at 

50 CFR 600.310(e)(4)(ii)(B)(3) states: 

[i]f the lower limit is 10 years or greater, 

then the specified time period for rebuilding 

may be adjusted upward to the extent 

warranted by the needs of fishing 

communities....except that no such upward 

adjustment can exceed the rebuilding period 

calculated in the absence of fishing mortality, 

plus one mean generation time or equivalent 

period based on the species’ life-history 

characteristics. 

Comment 16: NMFS should not 

require the public to attend 

identification workshops for sharks 

when shark fishing will essentially be 

banned. 

Response: While shark fishing will be 

substantially reduced under this 

Amendment, there will still be 

incidentally caught sharks. Accurate 

shark identification will be important 

for gathering information for future 

management. 

Comment 17: Fishermen should be 

allowed to keep dead dusky sharks on 

haulback because discarding dead 

sharks is a waste. 

Response: Dusky sharks are a 

prohibited species that must be 

released. NMFS has determined that 

dusky sharks are a prohibited species 

because their life history is not 

conducive to commercial or recreational 

fisheries targeting them. Dusky sharks 

are late-maturing and have very few 

offspring. Further, these species do not 

have high post release survival on 

longline gear. NMFS continues to 

discourage fishermen from targeting 

dusky sharks because the recent stock 

assessment indicates that dusky sharks 

are overfished and experiencing 

overfishing despite being listed as a 

prohibited species since 2000. 

Comment 18: NMFS needs to consider 

an exit strategy in case things do not 

work out as planned in the amendment. 

Response: NMFS believes that this 

Amendment allows for sufficient 

flexibility to make adjustments as 

conditions may change in the fishery. 

Furthermore, regulations are constantly 

being reviewed for their utility and 

whether or not they are meeting their 

stated objectives. Additional regulations 

are expected as new stock assessments 

become available. 

Comment 19: NMFS needs to improve 

international management with Mexico 

to manage sharks throughout their 

range. 

Response: NMFS is currently working 

through the appropriate international 

foras to improve shark management in 

Mexico. 

Comment 20: NMFS should consider 

adding a ‘‘use it or lose it’’ requirement 

on shark permits. 

Response: Measures requiring shark 

fishermen to demonstrate landings 

history or risk losing their commercial 

shark fishing permit were not 

considered in this amendment. The 

addition of a ‘‘use it or lose it’’

condition on shark permits may actually 

result in increased pressure on sharks if 

holders of latent permits are compelled 

to use their permits sufficiently to avoid 

losing them in the future. 

Comment 21: There is an 

inconsistency in the Draft EIS, Chapter 

3 page 16. This presents state 

regulations, and fails to mention that 

longline gear is also prohibited in 

Georgia’s state waters. Additionally, 

Georgia’s Small Shark Composite 

should have the acronym SSC, not SCS, 

which is the federal Small Coastal 

Sharks management group. 

Response: These inconsistencies have 

been addressed in the Final EIS. 

Comment 22: There is new scientific 

evidence that oceanic whitetip shark 

stocks have declined. 

Response: NMFS has not conducted a 

stock assessment for oceanic whitetips. 

NMFS will continue to work with 

international partners and ICCAT 

towards more species-specific 

assessments for pelagic sharks. Data 

may be a limiting factor, however, as 

there are limited landings data for 

oceanic whitetip sharks. To date, ICCAT 

has completed assessments for blue and 

shortfin mako sharks. There is scant 

data available on oceanic whitetip 

landings. 

Comment 23: The Draft EIS does little 

to address bycatch of protected species 

aside from the suggestion that the 

preferred alternative may provide a 

mechanism to conduct the field trials 

necessary to appropriately assess the 

efficacy of circle hooks for reducing 

bycatch and post-hooking mortality of 

sea turtles in the BLL fishery. While 

both the pelagic and BLL fisheries are 

required to carry tools to remove gear 

from turtles before they are released, 

there are no performance goals for 

removing gear or a requirement to use 

circle hooks for bycatch of protected 

species. 

Response: NMFS may consider 

additional management measures for 

reducing bycatch in the future. NMFS 

has prepared a new BiOp regarding the 

proposed actions under Amendment 2 

to the Consolidated HMS FMP, which 

was released on May 20, 2008. The May 

2008 BiOp concluded based on the best 

available scientific information, the 

proposed action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

endangered green, leatherback, and 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; the 

endangered smalltooth sawfish; or 

threatened loggerhead sea turtle. The 

proposed actions are not expected to 

increase endangered species or marine 

mammal interaction rates. Furthermore, 

the BiOp concluded that the proposed 

actions are not likely to adversely affect 

any of the listed species of marine 

mammals, invertebrates (i.e., listed 

species of coral) or other listed species 

of fish (i.e., Gulf sturgeon and Atlantic 

salmon) in the action area. HMS is 

implementing Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP consistent with 

the May 2008 BiOp. 

Comment 24: If Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico fisheries are to continue, 100–


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40696 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

percent observer coverage should be 

required. 

Response: In 2007 and 2008, NMFS is 

implementing 100–percent observer 

coverage for vessels operating in the 

Gulf of Mexico with PLL gear. Outside 

of this period, a statistically significant 

level of observer coverage will be used 

that is consistent with relevant 

Biological Opinions and other factors. 

Comment 25: Deepwater sharks need 

protection. This group of sharks is 

simply too vulnerable to sustain 

fisheries so NMFS should prevent the 

development of fisheries before any 

fishermen invest in them. The deep 

water shark complex needs attention 

and it was a major mistake to remove 

deep water sharks from the management 

unit as was done in Amendment 1 to the 

1999 FMP and it should not be repeated 

in this Amendment through benign 

neglect. 

Response: Deepwater sharks were 

previously removed from the 

management unit in Amendment 1 to 

the 1999 FMP. There are no fisheries 

targeting deepwater sharks and no data 

from fisheries that catch deepwater 

sharks as bycatch. The referenced 

changes clarify the regulations by 

linking the definition of ‘‘shark’’ more 

directly to the definition of the shark 

‘‘management unit.’’ The only 

regulation prior to this time (2003) was 

the ban on shark finning, however, this 

was addressed in the SFPA of 2000. 

NMFS will continue to collect 

information on deepwater sharks and 

may add them to the management unit 

or implement additional management 

measures to protect them in the future. 

Comment 26: NMFS claims that 

dusky bycatch will decrease, however, 

the species will nonetheless be subject 

to an increased non-sandbar LCS 

retention limit. This means that the 

actual catch of dusky sharks is not likely 

to significantly decrease. Catch of dusky 

sharks must be significantly reduced in 

order for the species’ population to 

rebuild. 

Response: Unlike the sandbar shark 

assessment, which recommended a 

specific TAC, or the blacktip stock 

assessments, which recommended 

specific catch levels, the dusky shark 

assessment did not give specific 

mortality targets. In addition, even if 

NMFS stopped all shark fishing in the 

Atlantic, dusky sharks would still be 

caught as bycatch in BLL and gillnet 

fisheries targeting other non-shark 

species. Even though NMFS placed this 

species on the prohibited species list in 

2000, discards continue. NMFS 

estimated a reduction in dusky 

mortality as a result of sandbar and nonsandbar LCS management actions. 

Based on the reduced quotas and trip 

limits, NMFS estimates that dusky shark 

mortality could be reduced from 33.1 mt 

dw to 9.1 mt dw per year. This is a 73- 

percent reduction in mortality 

compared to the status quo, and should 

afford dusky sharks more protection 

compared to the status quo. 

Comment 27: The proposed rule does 

not offer protection for Small Coastal 

Sharks (SCS). 

Response: NMFS is planning to 

address SCS in a future FMP 

amendment based on the 2007 SCS 

stock assessment (May 7, 2008, 73 FR 

25665). 

Comment 28: NMFS should consider 

impacts of gear (longline, gillnet) on 

EFH and coral reefs. 

Response: NMFS is currently 

developing a draft Amendment 1 to the 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP to 

address EFH issues, including gear 

impacts on HMS and non-HMS habitat. 

Comment 29: Is a ‘‘suite’’ a new 

concept or term for alternatives? The 

suite format is very effective. 

Response: The term ‘‘suite’’ is used 

here to group regulatory alternatives 

created to address the objective of a 

rulemaking. The suite concept is used to 

help facilitate the communication of 

logical groupings of potential 

management measures that could be 

used in conjunction to address the 

objectives of this rulemaking. The suite 

approach also allows for a more holistic 

analysis of the overall benefits and costs 

associated with the major regulatory 

alternatives considered. For example, 

the specific quotas implemented in this 

rule also corresponds to modified 

retention limits, reporting requirements, 

and regions. 

Comment 30: All commercial fish 

profiteers should be banned from 

catching any sharks at any time. 

Response: NMFS manages 

commercial fisheries for authorized 

species in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

of the United States. Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must 

manage fisheries to achieve optimum 

yield and must also consider economic 

and social impacts on individual 

businesses and communities. 

Alternative suite 5 included measures 

that would have closed all shark 

fisheries. This alternative suite is not 

preferred because of the significant 

economic impacts it would have caused, 

the fact that all sharks would have to be 

discarded, often dead, and because that 

alternative would preclude NMFS from 

gathering biological and fishery 

dependent data information needed to 

accurately assess the status of the 

stocks. 

Changes from the Proposed Rule (72 FR 

41392, July 27, 2007) 

In addition to the correction of minor 

edits throughout, NMFS has made 

several changes to the proposed rule. 

These changes are outlined below. 

1. In § 635.2, the definition of 

‘‘naturally attached’’ was added. The 

definitions of ‘‘dress’’ and ‘‘dressed 

weight’’ were modified to clarify the 

regulation requiring commercial vessel 

operators to keep the fins on the shark 

carcass through offloading. 

2. In § 635.2, the definition of ‘‘first 

receiver’’ was revised based on public 

comment and discussions with NOAA’s 

Office of Law Enforcement. The revised 

definition matches more fully with 

other definitions of first receivers in 

other fishery regulations (see 50 CFR 

parts 622 and 648) and clarifies who 

needs to have a shark dealer permit. 

3. In § 635.2, the definition of ‘‘shark 

research permit’’ was modified to 

specify that the permit is specific to the 

vessel and owner combination, not just 

the vessel. This change will ensure that 

owners who are chosen to participate in 

the shark research fishery and who are 

trying to sell their vessel, do not try to 

sell their shark research permit with 

their vessel, since the particular 

applicant was chosen by NMFS to 

conduct the research based on certain 

factors. 

4. In § 635.5(b)(1)(i), a clarification is 

made that shark dealers must report fin 

weight and meat weight separately, as 

specified on the forms. Additionally, 

after publication of this final rule, 

NMFS intends to seek approval, 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA), to require dealers to check a 

box on the dealer form to indicate 

whether sharks were landed with the 

fins attached or not. This requirement 

would be made effective when OMB 

approves the information collection 

under Control Number 0648–0040. 

Notification of approval will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

5. In § 635.21(d)(1)(iii), the definitions 

of the MPAs are modified to match the 

final areas recommended by the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

in the summer of 2007. 

6. In § 635.22(c), the list of species 

that can be landed under the 

recreational retention limit was 

modified to include non-ridgeback 

species of LCS, tiger sharks, small 

coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks based 

on public comment. In the proposed 

rule, the harvest of certain species that 

NMFS felt were difficult to identify 

correctly, such as bull, spinner, and 

blacktip sharks, was proposed to be 

prohibited by recreational fishermen. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40697 

NMFS feels that the species that are 

finalized in this action are easily 

identified and more closely match the 

intent of the proposed regulation. 

Additionally, the entire paragraph was 

reorganized for clarity. 

7. Section 635.24(a) was modified to 

update the commercial retention limits 

based on public comment, additional 

analyses, and changes to the proposed 

quotas. Specifically, an adjusted 

retention limit for non-sandbar LCS 

from the effective date of this rule 

through 2012 was added to account for 

overharvests in 2007. Additionally, a 

paragraph has been added to prohibit 

the highgrading of sharks by commercial 

fishermen based on public comment 

and a request from enforcement. 

8. In § 635.27(b), the commercial 

quotas were modified based on public 

comment and additional analyses. 

Specifically, a porbeagle shark quota 

was added, unclassified sharks will be 

counted towards the appropriate species 

quota based on ratios in observer data 

and/or on shark dealer reporting forms, 

the non-sandbar LCS quota was split 

into two regions (modified from the 

current definition to clarify that the 

Florida Keys are located in the Gulf of 

Mexico region), and an adjusted base 

quota from the effective date of this rule 

through 2012 (five years) was added to 

account for overharvests in 2007. Future 

overharvests will generally be taken off 

the following year, as proposed. 

However, depending on the amount of 

future overharvests, NMFS may deduct 

the overharvests over several years up to 

a maximum of five years. Spreading the 

overharvests out should, among other 

things, ensure that the shark research 

fishery can continue to collect muchneeded data each year. 

Additionally, NMFS clarified the 

section on adjusting quotas based on 

underharvests to clarify that if a species 

in a particular quota group (e.g., nonsandbar LCS) were overfished, 

overfishing were occurring, or had an 

unknown status, then NMFS would not 

adjust the quota based on 

underharvests. 

9. In § 635.28(b), the section was 

modified, based on public comment, to 

allow for all species groups and regions 

to be closed separately, instead of 

together as proposed, when the fishery 

is expected to reach 80 percent of the 

relevant quota. 

10. In § 635.30(c)(2) and (3), sentences 

were added, corresponding to the added 

definitions of ‘‘naturally attached’’ and 

‘‘dress,’’ to clarify the regulation to keep 

all fins attached to the corresponding 

shark carcass, including the upper lobe 

of the tail, through offloading and to 

state specifically that no shark fins are 

allowed on a vessel unless the fins are 

naturally attached to a shark carcass. 

11. In § 635.31, paragraph (c)(1) was 

added to clarify that persons may only 

sell sharks if both the fishery and/or 

region is open. 

12. In § 635.32(f), additional specifics 

regarding the required items on the 

application and the process for issuing 

shark research permits were added 

based on public comment, requests by 

NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement, and 

requests by NMFS scientists. These 

specifics include the requirement for 

vessels to have complied with observer 

coverage regulations and HMS fishery 

regulations to be eligible for a shark 

research permit under this part. 

Additional clarifications on how NMFS 

will select vessels have been added. 

13. In § 635.71, various prohibitions 

have been updated or modified based on 

the changes listed above. 

Commercial Fishing Season 

Notification 

The 2008 adjusted commercial quotas 

for each shark species group is as 

follows: sandbar shark (shark research 

fishery only) = 87.9 mt dw; non-sandbar 

LCS = 615.8 mt dw; pelagic sharks other 

than blue or porbeagle = 488 mt dw; 

blue shark = 273 mt dw; porbeagle shark 

= 1.7 mt dw; and SCS = 454 mt dw. The 

non-sandbar LCS commercial quota is 

further split by region and fishery as 

follows: Atlantic region = 187.8 mt dw; 

Gulf of Mexico region = 390.5 mt dw; 

and shark research fishery = 37.5 mt dw. 

On July 24, 2008, the sandbar, nonsandbar LCS, pelagic shark, blue shark, 

porbeagle shark, and SCS fisheries will 

open under the quotas noted above. All 

of these fisheries will remain open 

through December 31, 2008, unless the 

quota for that shark species group (or in 

the case of non-sandbar LCS, regional 

area) is projected to reach 80 percent of 

its available quota. When calculating the 

percent of the available quota caught for 

each species and/or region, NMFS will 

include landings from January 1, 2008, 

through July 24, 2008. As specified in 

§ 635.27(b)(1), once the landings for that 

shark species group or regional area 

reach 80 percent of its quota, NMFS will 

file for publication with the Office of the 

Federal Register an appropriate 

rulemaking for that shark species group 

that will be effective no fewer than 5 

days from date of filing. From the 

effective date and time of the closure, 

until NMFS announces via a notice in 

the Federal Register that additional 

quota is available, the fishery for that 

shark species group and/or regional area 

is closed, even across fishing years. 

When the fishery for a shark species 

group and/or regional area is closed, a 

fishing vessel issued an Atlantic Shark 

LAP pursuant to § 635.4 may not 

possess or sell a shark of that species 

group, except under the conditions 

specified in § 635.22(a) and (c) or if the 

vessel possesses a valid shark research 

permit under § 635.32 and a NMFSapproved observer is onboard. A shark 

dealer issued a permit pursuant to 

§ 635.4 may not purchase or receive a 

shark of that species group from a vessel 

issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, except 

that a permitted shark dealer or 

processor may possess sharks that were 

harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, 

or bartered, prior to the effective date of 

the closure and were held in storage. In 

the case of non-sandbar LCS, during a 

regional fishing closure, a fishing vessel 

issued an Atlantic Shark LAP pursuant 

to § 635.4 and operating in region(s) 

closed to shark fishing may not possess 

or sell a shark of that species group, 

except under the conditions specified in 

§ 635.22(a) and (c). A shark dealer 

issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 and 

located in the closed region may not 

purchase or receive a shark of that 

species group from a vessel issued an 

Atlantic Shark LAP, except that a 

permitted shark dealer or processor may 

possess sharks that were harvested, offloaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, 

prior to the effective date of the closure 

and were held in storage. Under a 

closure for a shark species group and/ 

or regional closure, a shark dealer 

issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, 

in accordance with state regulations, 

purchase or receive a shark of that 

species group if the sharks were 

harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, 

or bartered from a vessel that fishes only 

in state waters and that has not been 

issued a Shark LAP, HMS Angling 

permit, or HMS CHB permit pursuant to 

§ 635.4. Additionally, under a closure 

for a shark species group and/or 

regional closure, a shark dealer issued a 

permit pursuant to § 635.4 may 

purchase or receive a shark of that 

species group if the sharks were 

harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, 

or bartered from a vessel issued a valid 

shark research permit (per § 635.32) that 

had a NMFS-approved observer on 

board during the trip during which 

sharks were collected. 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries determined that Amendment 2 

to the Consolidated HMS FMP is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of the Atlantic shark 

fishery and is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40698 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

NMFS prepared a FEIS for this FMP 

amendment. The FEIS was filed with 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

on April 11, 2008. A notice of 

availability was published on April 18, 

2008 (73 FR 21124). In approving the 

FMP amendment, NMFS issued a 

Record of Decision (ROD) on June 6, 

2008, identifying the selected 

alternatives. A copy of the ROD is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the PRA and which has been approved 

by OMB under Control Number 0648–

0471. Public reporting burden for the 

HMS EFP, SRP, display permit, shark 

research permit, and letter of 

authorization information collection is 

estimated to average 2 hours per 

scientific research plan; 40 minutes per 

application, including the shark 

research permit application; 15 minutes 

per request for amendment to the EFP; 

1 hour per interim report; 2 minutes per 

‘‘no catch’’ report; 40 minutes per 

annual report; 5 minutes per departure 

notification regarding collection of 

display animals; 10 minutes per 

notification call for observer coverage 

for the shark research fishery; and 2 

minutes per tag application. These 

burden estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

information. 

This rule also contains revisions to 

collection of information 0648-0040. 

The revisions are subject to review and 

approval by OMB under PRA. Currently, 

this collection of information is under 

review at OMB for revisions other than 

those contained in this rule (73 FR 

18473, April 4, 2008). Once OMB 

approves the revisions in that rule, 

NMFS will submit a PRA package to 

OMB for approval regarding the 

addition of a check box on the dealer 

form. This check box would allow the 

dealer to note whether the shark fins 

were attached to the shark at landing or 

not. NMFS does not expect that the 

addition of a check box regarding shark 

fins would add to the reporting burden. 

NMFS will publish a document in the 

Federal Register to announce the 

effective date of the information 

collection. 

Send comments regarding these 

burden estimates or any other aspect of 

this data collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

With the release of the proposed rule 

on July 27, 2007, NMFS determined that 

the management measures in this rule 

will be implemented in a manner that 

is consistent, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the enforceable 

policies of the approved coastal 

management programs of states with 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

programs that are located in the Atlantic 

Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. This 

determination was submitted for review 

by the responsible state agencies under 

section 307 of the CZMA. On October 

10, 2007, Georgia’s Department of 

Natural Resources (GDNR) objected to 

NMFS’ consistency determination that 

the provisions in Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP are consistent, 

to the maximum extent practicable, with 

the enforceable policies of the Georgia 

Coastal Zone Management Program 

(GCZMP). The October 10, 2007, letter 

stated that NMFS failed to consider the 

elimination of the use of shark gillnets 

in Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

HMS FMP. GDNR claims that the use of 

gillnets in Federal waters is inconsistent 

with the GCZMP because the program 

bans the use of gillnet and longline gear 

in state waters to address bycatch of 

protected species and marine mammals. 

NMFS considered the comments in 

the October 10, 2007, letter and, for the 

reasons stated below, has determined 

that the final actions in Amendment 2 

to the Consolidated HMS FMP, 

including allowing the use of gillnet 

gear in the Atlantic shark fishery, are 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the GCZMP, 15 CFR 930.32. 

NMFS shares the State of Georgia’s 

concern regarding the impact of the 

shark gillnet fishery on threatened and 

endangered species. Given these 

impacts, NMFS will not implement 

measures that increase fishing effort 

with this gear type, such as setting 

gillnet specific retention limits for 

blacktip sharks. However, NMFS also 

recognizes that the data currently 

available indicate relatively low rates of 

bycatch and bycatch mortality of 

protected species and other finfish in 

the shark gillnet fishery compared to 

other HMS and non-HMS fisheries. It is 

worth noting that observer coverage 

rates in the shark gillnet fishery are 

higher than in other fisheries because of 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan requirements. Increased observer 

coverage reduces the associated error 

that can be introduced when calculating 

bycatch and protected resource 

interactions on non-observed trips. For 

instance, observer reports indicate that 

finfish bycatch in shark gillnet fishery 

during 2007 ranged from 1.7 to 13.3 

percent of the total catch. In addition, 

observed protected species bycatch (sea 

turtles and marine mammals) was less 

than 0.1 percent of the total catch. 

Therefore, NMFS does not believe it is 

appropriate to eliminate this fishery and 

shift its associated effort to other 

fisheries that have higher interaction 

rates with protected resources and 

marine mammals. 

In addition, according to recent 

observer reports, only four to six vessels 

use shark gillnet gear, therefore, the 

cumulative impact of this fishery is not 

expected to have significant ecological 

impacts on non-target species. The 

incidental capture of endangered 

species in the shark gillnet fishery is 

regulated under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). A BiOp issued May 20, 2008, 

in response to the actions taken in the 

Final Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan, concluded, 

that the continuation of the shark gillnet 

(including strikenets, drift gillnets, and 

sink gillnets) fishery would not likely 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

protected species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Furthermore, the BiOp 

indicated that shark strikenets are not 

likely to have much impact on sea turtle 

or smalltooth sawfish takes because 

deployment of this gear currently results 

in very few takes. Interactions with 

protected resources occur more 

frequently with drift or sink gillnets 

than using strikenets, but gillnet gear 

interactions with protected resources 

are still minimal compared to longline 

fishing. 

In addition, currently, all shark gillnet 

vessels are required to carry VMS and 

are subject to observer coverage during 

and outside of the right whale calving 

season. The most recent regulations 

amending the Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Plan were published in 

the Federal Register on June 25, 2007 

(72 FR 34632), and on October 5, 2007 

(72 FR 57104). These regulations 

include a variety of measures aimed at 

reducing the likelihood of an interaction 

between shark gillnet gear and right 

whales. These regulations include, but 

are not limited to, prohibiting all gillnet 

fishing from November 15 through April 

15 of each year in Federal waters off the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40699 

state of Georgia. NMFS will continue to 

work with the take reduction teams and 

relevant Fishery Management Councils 

to examine methods to reduce bycatch. 

NMFS acknowledges the concerns 

raised by the State of Georgia regarding 

protected resources interactions and 

bycatch that occurs in gillnet gear. 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

National Standards (16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(1), (3), (8), and (9)), NMFS must, 

among other things, implement 

conservation and management measures 

to prevent overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery; manage stocks 

throughout their range to the extent 

practicable; minimize adverse economic 

impacts on fishing communities to the 

extent practicable; and minimize 

bycatch and bycatch mortality to the 

extent practicable. Gillnets are the 

commercial gear that are used to 

primarily target small coastal sharks 

(SCS) and blacktip sharks. The SCS 

complex was assessed in 2007; three of 

the four species of SCS have been 

determined to not be overfished with 

overfishing not occurring. Blacknose 

sharks have been determined to be 

overfished with overfishing occurring; 

therefore, NMFS has initiated 

development of a rebuilding plan for 

this species and measures to end 

overfishing. These measures may 

include changes to the shark gillnet 

fishery, as necessary. However, the 

latest blacktip stock assessment 

recommended not changing catches of 

blacktip sharks in the Atlantic Ocean. 

Therefore, based on the best scientific 

information available, Amendment 2 to 

the Consolidated HMS FMP would 

manage the fishery for optimum yield 

by keeping the SCS quota at the status 

quo level and setting a non-sandbar 

large coastal shark (LCS) quota 

(including blacktip sharks) based on 

historical landings. Given that the nonsandbar LCS quota is based on the latest 

blacktip shark assessment, closing the 

shark gillnet fishery in Federal waters 

off Georgia would not facilitate 

achieving the optimum yield from the 

fishery and managing the stocks 

throughout their range. Thus, NMFS is 

not prohibiting shark gillnet gear at this 

time due to the negative social and 

economic impact this would have on 

the four to six vessels actively fishing in 

the shark gillnet fishery. In addition, 

NMFS has implemented high-levels of 

observer coverage on gillnet vessels 

targeting sharks as well as those 

targeting other species to monitor 

bycatch and interactions with protected 

resources; NMFS can take additional 

action if interactions with protected 

resources in the this fishery become a 

problem. 

At this time, there is not sufficient 

information to support a closure of the 

shark gillnet fishery in Federal waters 

adjacent to Georgia, pursuant to the 

Coastal Zone Management Act. This 

decision is consistent with National 

Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) (MagnusonStevens Act), which requires that 

management measures be based on the 

best scientific information available 

including the BiOp. NMFS has 

determined that the final actions in 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP and its implementing rule are 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the GCZMP. Accordingly, this rule, 

which that finalizes Amendment 2 to 

the Consolidated HMS FMP, will not 

ban gillnet gear in the Atlantic shark 

fishery. 

Summary of the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA 

incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the 

significant issues raised by the public 

comments in response to the IRFA, 

NMFS’ responses to those comments, 

and a summary of the economic 

analyses completed to support the 

action. A summary of the analysis, 

which addresses each of the 

requirements in 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)-(5), 

can be found below. A copy of the full 

analysis is available in Amendment 2 to 

the Consolidated HMS FMP (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Statement of the Need for and 

Objectives of this Final Rule 

The need for and objectives of the 

final rule are fully described in the 

preamble of the proposed rule (72 FR 

41392, July 27, 2007) and in Final 

Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP and are not repeated here (5 U.S.C. 

604(a)(1)). In summary, the selected 

actions in this final rule will rebuild 

overfished shark fisheries by: reducing 

the commercial quotas, adjusting the 

commercial retention limits, 

establishing a shark research fishery, 

requiring commercial vessels to 

maintain all fins on the shark carcasses 

through offloading, establishing two 

regional quotas for non-sandbar large 

coastal sharks (LCS), establishing one 

annual season for commercial shark 

fishing, changing the reporting 

requirements for dealers (including 

swordfish and tuna dealers), 

establishing additional time/area 

closures for BLL fishermen, and 

changing the authorized species for 

recreational fishermen. This rule also 

establishes the 2008 commercial quota 

for all shark species groups. These 

changes affect all commercial and 

recreational shark fishermen and shark 

dealers. 

A Summary of the Significant Issues 

Raised By the Public Comments in 

Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the 

Assessment of NMFS of Such Issues, 

and a Statement of Any Changes Made 

in the Rule as a Result of Such 

Comments 

A FRFA is also required to include a 

summary of the significant issues raised 

by the public comments in response to 

the IRFA, a summary of the assessment 

of the issues raised, and a statement of 

any changes made in the rule as a result 

of the comments (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(2)). 

NMFS received many comments on the 

proposed rule and draft EIS during the 

public comment period. A summary of 

these comments and NMFS’s responses 

are included above. The specific 

economic concerns raised in comments 

are also summarized here. 

NMFS received a comment that 

NMFS should consider an alternative 

suite that incorporates a ‘‘phase out’’ of 

the commercial shark industry. NMFS 

did consider such an alternative in the 

Draft EIS that would have ended 

Atlantic commercial shark fishing, 

Alternative Suite 5. Under this 

alternative, shark landings would have 

been limited to research and the 

collection for public display via the 

HMS Exempted Fishing Program. 

Recreational fisheries would have been 

catch and release only. However, after 

careful consideration of the other 

alternatives, this alternative suite was 

not preferred due to the economic costs 

associated with a complete closure as 

discussed in Chapter 6 of Amendment 

2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. 

NMFS received several comments 

regarding an industry buyout/buyback. 

NMFS recognizes that some participants 

of the Atlantic shark fishery expressed 

interest in reducing fishing capacity for 

sharks via some form of buyout 

program. Buyouts can occur via one of 

three mechanisms, including: through 

an industry fee, via appropriations from 

the United States Congress, and/or with 

funds provided from any State or other 

public sources or private or non-profit 

organization. A buyout plan is not 

proposed in this rulemaking, despite 

requests for consideration from the HMS 

Advisory Panel and other affected 

constituents, because NMFS is unable to 

independently implement a buyout as a 

management option. Buyouts must be 

initiated via one of the aforementioned 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40700 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

mechanisms. The shark fishery did 

develop an industry ‘‘business plan’’

that examined options for a buyout, 

which is further described in Chapter 1 

of the Draft Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP. 

NMFS received several comments 

concerning the potential for severe 

economic impacts associated with all of 

the alternatives considered (other than 

status quo). Comments indicated a 

concern that many fishermen may not 

be able to survive economically until 

the next stock assessment. NMFS 

estimated that the alternatives 

considered, including the no action 

alternative, would result in economic 

consequences to the shark fishery. The 

severity of the economic consequences 

varies by alternative suite, with 

alternative suite 5, the complete closure 

of the Atlantic shark fishery, having the 

greatest economic impact. 

It was also suggested that NMFS 

should include analysis of the negative 

economic impacts associated with 

prohibiting porbeagle sharks in shark 

tournaments, especially in New 

England. NMFS appreciates this 

additional information regarding the 

importance of porbeagle sharks in 

tournament fisheries. Additional 

information has been incorporated into 

the final EIS for Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP to further 

address the potential economic impacts 

of a prohibition of porbeagle landings. 

However, based on strong support from 

the public not to prohibit retention of 

porbeagle sharks and NMFS’ recognition 

of the negative impacts of such a 

prohibition, NMFS is choosing not to 

prohibit the recreational retention of 

porbeagle sharks. 

Comments indicated that economic 

impacts on recreational fisheries would 

be significant if sandbar, bull, and 

blacktip sharks were prohibited in the 

recreational fishery. Comments 

indicated that the negative economic 

impacts resulting from the reduced 

number of sharks that could be legally 

landed by recreational anglers would be 

particularly pronounced in areas where 

blacktip sharks are frequently 

encountered. In addition, tournaments 

offering prize categories for sharks could 

also experience negative economic 

impacts as a result of not allowing six 

additional species to be retained in 

recreational fisheries. Due to a lack of 

information regarding the relative 

preferences of shark fishermen to retain 

shark species over practicing catch-andrelease shark fishing, NMFS was unable 

to quantitatively estimate the economic 

impacts of the proposed recreational 

measures restricting the authorized list 

of species that could be retained. In part 

to mitigate these impacts, the final 

preferred alternative suite would allow 

recreational anglers to retain blacktip, 

finetooth, blacknose, bull, spinner, and 

porbeagle sharks. 

Comments also indicated a concern 

that dealers will not likely be interested 

in continuing to buy shark products 

when the proposed measures go into 

place. NMFS acknowledges that some 

dealers may opt to no longer participate 

in the shark fishery due to the decrease 

in volume of shark product that is 

anticipated under the reduced quotas. 

Handling low volumes of shark product 

may not be profitable for some dealers. 

However, the information available to 

NMFS indicates that several shark 

dealers already handle small quantities 

of shark products, and therefore, 

changes in the shark fishery are unlikely 

to cause them to change their business 

practices. Reduced domestic harvest of 

sandbar sharks could potentially 

increase the value of shark product in 

the future due to reduced supplies. 

Furthermore, having the season open for 

a longer period of time each year, 

subject to reduced retention limits, may 

enhance the domestic shark meat 

market and increase prices. 

Several comments suggested NMFS 

should implement a retraining program 

for fishermen and families that are 

displaced by this action. Others 

suggested that fishermen reconfigure 

their businesses towards providing 

tourism services. NMFS has worked 

with a number of other agencies/ 

departments to explore programs that 

are available to fishermen and other 

businesses affected by fishery 

management measures. Some of these 

include retraining programs and 

financial assistance and would mitigate 

some of the economic impacts of this 

rule. These programs are further 

discussed in response to comments 

provided above. 

Commenters also suggested that 

NMFS consider giving shark fishermen 

swordfish handgear permits in order to 

help offset negative economic impacts, 

while also increasing swordfish 

landings. NMFS did not propose 

changes to the permit system pursuant 

to the rulemaking; however, NMFS will 

take this suggestion under consideration 

for future actions. NMFS notes that the 

swordfish handgear permit is a limited 

access permit. Therefore, issuing new 

swordfish handgear permits may result 

in negative economic impacts to current 

holders of swordfish handgear permits. 

In addition, NMFS recently issued new 

regulations to revitalize the swordfish 

fishery and may consider additional 

measures in the future depending on the 

outcome of the current regulatory 

changes. 

NMFS received a comment 

questioning whether shark permits will 

still have any value after the proposed 

management changes take place. It is 

difficult to predict the value of shark 

directed and incidental permits before 

management measures associated with 

this Amendment are implemented. It is 

likely that the value of shark permits 

may be decreased as a result of quota 

reductions and reduced retention limits. 

However, there will still be some 

demand for shark permits by new 

entrants into the commercial swordfish 

and tuna fisheries who will need all 

three HMS permits to fish. 

NMFS received comments indicating 

that requiring fishermen to land sharks 

with fins on will change the entire 

pricing of shark product. Commenters 

suggested that NMFS could be changing 

the whole valuation process by 

requiring that sharks have their fins on. 

The requirement to land sharks with 

their fins attached would allow 

fishermen to leave the fins attached by 

just a small piece of skin so that the 

shark could be packed efficiently on ice 

at sea. Shark fins could then be quickly 

removed at the dock without having to 

thaw the shark. Sharks may be 

eviscerated, bled, and the head removed 

from the carcass at sea. These measures 

should prevent any excessive amounts 

of waste at the dock, since dressing the 

shark (except removing the fins) can be 

performed while at sea. While this will 

result in some changes to the way 

fishermen process sharks at sea, the 

transfer of shark product to dealers 

could remain relatively unchanged 

because the fins can be removed quickly 

once the shark has been offloaded. 

NMFS expects that the market will 

continue to receive sharks in their log 

form. While there may be some changes 

in the way sharks are marketed and 

priced, it is unlikely that the total exvessel value of sharks will change 

significantly due to the requirement to 

land sharks with their fins attached. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Final 

Rule Would Apply 

NMFS considers all HMS commercial 

permit holders to be small entities 

because they either had average annual 

receipts less than $4.0 million for fishharvesting, average annual receipts less 

than $6.5 million for charter/party 

boats, 100 or fewer employees for 

wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer 

employees for seafood processors (5 

U.S.C. 604(a)(3)). These are the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) size 

standards for defining a small versus 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40701 

large business entity in this industry. A 

full description of the fisheries affected 

and the categories and number of permit 

holders can be found in Amendment 2 

to the Consolidated HMS FMP. 

The final rule would apply to the 527 

commercial shark permit holders in the 

Atlantic shark fishery based on an 

analysis of permit holders on October 1, 

2007. Of these permit holders, 231 have 

directed shark permits and 296 hold 

incidental shark permits. Not all permit 

holders are active in the fishery in any 

given year. NMFS estimates that there 

are 143 vessels with directed shark 

permits and 155 vessels with shark 

incidental permits that could be 

considered actively engaged in fishing, 

since they reported landing at least one 

shark in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook 

from 2003 to 2005. 

In addition, the reporting 

requirements in the final alternatives 

would also apply to Federal shark 

dealers. As of October 1, 2007, there 

were a total of 269 Atlantic shark dealer 

permit holders. Based on NMFS’

understanding of HMS dealer 

operations, NMFS assumes that each of 

these dealers would be considered a 

small business entity with 100 or fewer 

employees. 

The final measures being considered 

may also impact the types of services 

HMS CHB permit holders may provide. 

As of October 1, 2007, there were 4,899 

HMS CHB permit holders. It is 

unknown what portion of these permit 

holders actively participate in shark 

fishing or market shark fishing services 

for recreational anglers. 

In addition, some businesses, such as 

marinas or specialized tournament 

organizers that hold tournaments may 

be considered small entities. HMS 

tournaments are required to register 

with NMFS. As such, NMFS has 

estimates on the number of HMS 

tournaments. However, NMFS may not 

necessarily know the number of 

businesses behind the tournament name 

and contact. Tournaments offering prize 

categories for sharks may also 

experience negative economic impacts 

as a result of NMFS prohibiting two 

additional species of sharks for 

retention in recreational fisheries in 

alternative suites 2 through 4, as well as 

alternative suite 5 which would allow 

no possession of any sharks and only 

allow catch and release fishing. The 

majority of tournaments specializing in 

sharks are in the North Atlantic region, 

specifically Rhode Island, New York, 

and Massachusetts. In 2007, there were 

59 tournaments with prize categories for 

pelagic sharks and 42 (combined) 

tournaments for LCS and SCS. 

Description of the Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Final Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Classes of 

Small Entities Which Would Be Subject 

to the Requirements of the Report or 

Record 

The final action requires modifying 

existing reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4)). The 

research program component in this 

final rule requires modifications to the 

existing EFP program and dealer 

reporting requirements. 

The final action modifies the 

reporting frequency for dealers. The 

current requirement for dealer reports to 

be post-marked within 10 days after 

each reporting period (1st through 15th

and 16th through last day of month), 

would be modified to state that dealer 

reports must be received by NMFS not 

later than 10 days after each reporting 

period (i.e., 25th and 10th of each 

month). Shark, swordfish, and tuna 

dealers would have to submit these 

reports in advance of the 10th and 25th 

of each month to ensure adequate time 

for delivery, depending on the means 

employed for report submission. 

Requiring that all dealer reports are 

actually received by NMFS in a more 

timely fashion would provide more 

frequent reports of shark landings in 

order to better assess quantities of 

sharks landed and whether or not a 

closure or other management measure is 

warranted to prevent overfishing. 

Dealers would still be required to 

submit reports indicating that no sharks 

were purchased during inactive periods. 

NMFS also intends to add a check box 

to the dealer form for dealers to note 

whether sharks were landed with fins 

naturally attached. Requirements for 

vessel logbooks and observer coverage 

would remain unchanged. Additional 

burden is not expected as a result of 

modifying the regulations to ensure that 

dealer reports are actually received 

within 10 days. 

The final rule would also create a 

limited shark research program that 

would result in changes to existing 

reporting requirements. Entry into the 

shark research program would require 

vessels to submit an application, which 

would add to the reporting burden for 

those vessels wishing to apply. 

Applicants selected to participate in the 

shark research program under this 

alternative would also be subject to 100 

percent observer coverage as a 

requirement for eligibility to participate 

in the program. In addition, selected 

vessels would continue to report in their 

normal logbook in addition to the 

observer program. Vessels in the shark 

research program, however, would not 

need to report in the same way as other 

EFP holders even though they are being 

issued permits under the EFP program. 

For example, vessels in the research 

fishery would not be required to submit 

interim or annual reports describing 

their fishing activities. Rather, they 

would only be required to submit their 

logbooks per current regulations. 

Vessels outside the shark research 

program would still be required to carry 

an observer if selected and all vessels 

would still be required to complete 

logbooks within 48 hours of fishing 

activity and then submit the logbooks to 

NMFS within seven days. 

Description of the Steps NMFS Has 

Taken to Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent with the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes, Including a 

Statement of the Factual, Policy, and 

Legal Reasons for Selecting the 

Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule 

and the Reason That Each One of the 

Other Significant Alternatives to the 

Rule Considered by NMFS Which Affect 

Small Entities Was Rejected 

One of the requirements of a FRFA is 

to describe any alternatives to the 

proposed rule which would accomplish 

the stated objectives and which 

minimize any significant economic 

impacts (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5)). 

Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four 

general categories of ‘‘significant’’

alternatives that would assist an agency 

in the development of significant 

alternatives. These categories of 

alternatives are: 

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 for small entities. 

In order to meet the objectives of this 

final rule, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS 

cannot exempt small entities or change 

the reporting requirements only for 

small entities because all the entities 

affected are considered small entities. 

Thus, because NMFS considers all HMS 

permit holders to be small entities, there 

are no alternatives discussed that fall 

under the first and fourth categories 

described above. NMFS does not know 

of any performance or design standards 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

that would satisfy the aforementioned 

objectives of this rulemaking while, 

concurrently, complying with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are 

no alternatives considered under the 

third category. As described below, 

NMFS analyzed seven different 

alternatives in this rulemaking and 

provides justification for selection of the 

final action to achieve the desired 

objective. 

The alternatives considered and 

analyzed have been grouped into five 

alternative suites. Alternative suite 1 

would maintain the current Atlantic 

shark fishery (no action). Alternative 

suite 2 would allow only directed shark 

permit holders to land sharks. 

Alternative suite 3 would allow directed 

and incidental shark permit holders to 

land sandbar and non sandbar LCS as 

well as SCS and pelagic sharks. 

Alternative suite 4 would establish a 

program where vessels with directed or 

incidental shark permits could 

participate in a research fishery for 

sandbar sharks. Only vessels 

participating in this program could land 

sandbar sharks. Vessels not 

participating in the research program 

could land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, and 

pelagic sharks. Finally, alternative suite 

5 would shut down the commercial 

Atlantic shark fishery and only allow a 

catch and release recreational shark 

fishery. The preferred alternative is 

suite 4, which would establish a 

program where a limited number of 

vessels with directed or incidental shark 

permits could participate in a research 

fishery for sharks dependent on the 

research needs of NMFS. 

1. Alternative Suite 1 

Alternative suite 1, the status quo 

alternative, would not impose any 

significant new economic impacts to 

small businesses in the HMS Atlantic 

shark fishery because under this 

alternative the current LCS quota of 

1,017 mt dw, in conjunction with the 

4,000 lb LCS directed shark permit trip 

limit, would be maintained. Under this 

alternative, the current fishing effort 

would not likely change which could 

lead to economic benefits from reduced 

market uncertainty for fishermen and 

related businesses in the short term. If 

gross revenues for directed and 

incidental permit holders is averaged 

across the approximately 298 active 

directed and incidental shark permit 

holders, then the average annual gross 

revenues per shark fishing vessel is just 

over $20,000. However, long term, 

negative economic impacts could occur 

if current fishing mortality of sandbar 

sharks, an economically important 

species, is not decreased as 

recommended by the LCS stock 

assessment, and this species continues 

to be overfished. 

The status quo alternative would 

maintain the existing closures and 

would not add any new closures. The 

three management regions would also 

remain unchanged. There would also be 

no additional reporting requirements. 

Alternative suite 1 would also maintain 

the trimester seasons, which provides 

fishermen and dealers with more open 

seasons. With an annual LCS quota of 

1,017 mt dw, spreading the seasons out 

over the calendar year could potentially 

result in greater economic stability for 

fishermen and associated communities. 

However, if quotas are reduced to those 

in the final action to comply with the 

recommendations from the LCS stock 

assessment, while also maintaining the 

trimester seasons under status quo, 

trimester seasons could become less 

economically stable for fishermen and 

dealers because of the reduced amount 

of quota and fishing effort during the 

calendar year. Maintaining existing 

closures, reporting requirements, and 

management regions would likely have 

little to no economic impacts on 

effected small businesses. 

Alternative suite 1 would also 

maintain the current bag limit for HMS 

Angling permit holders at one shark 

greater than 54 inches per vessel per trip 

as well as one sharpnose and one 

bonnethead shark (both of which are in 

the SCS complex) per person per trip. 

This would likely result in no new 

economic impacts for businesses 

operating recreational fishing charter 

trips targeting sharks and shark fishing 

tournaments in the short term. 

Overall, alternative suite 1 would 

likely have the lowest economic impact 

on small businesses. However, this 

alternative would likely not meet the 

objectives of this action. Maintaining 

the LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw would be 

inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and the recent LCS stock assessment 

that recommended a TAC of 158.3 mt 

dw for sandbar sharks for this species to 

rebuild by 2070. Current fishing effort, 

under the status quo alternative, would 

lead to continued overfishing of 

sandbar, porbeagle and dusky sharks, 

which could potentially prevent these 

species from rebuilding in the 

recommended timeframe. As a result, 

this alternative was not selected. 

2. Alternative Suite 2 

Alternative suite 2 would allow only 

directed shark permit holders to land 

sharks. In addition, this alternative 

would remove sandbar sharks from the 

LCS complex and establish a separate 

category for sandbar sharks from the 

LCS complex. The quotas for landing 

sandbar and non-sandbar LCS would 

also be reduced. Incidental shark permit 

holders would not be permitted to land 

sharks under alternative suite 2. As of 

2007, there were 231 directed shark 

permit holders, 296 incidental shark 

permit holders, and 269 shark dealer 

permit holders. One hundred forty-three 

vessels with directed shark permits and 

155 vessels with shark incidental 

permits reported landing at least one 

shark in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook 

from 2003 to 2005 and could be 

considered active. 

Data on gross annual revenues 

indicate that implementation of 

alternative suite 2 would result in a 

significant reduction in revenue for 

directed shark permit holders. On 

average, directed permit holders landed 

1,286,447 lb dw of sandbar sharks and 

1,498,111 lb dw of non-sandbar LCS 

from 2003 to 2005 based on Federal and 

state shark dealer reports (landings by 

permit type were based on percentage of 

total landings by permit type in the 

Coastal Fisheries and HMS logbooks). In 

2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent 

to gross revenues of $4,702,031 

(assuming 5 percent of the landings are 

fins and 95 percent of the landings are 

carcass weight). If gross revenues for 

directed permit holders are averaged 

across the approximately 143 active 

directed shark permit holders, then the 

average annual gross revenues per shark 

fishing vessel is just under $33,000 from 

shark revenues. Under alternative suite 

2, gross revenues for directed permit 

holders would be estimated to be 

$1,333,417. This is a 72-percent overall 

reduction in gross revenues compared to 

the period from 2003 to 2005. These 

reduced gross revenues averaged across 

the 143 active directed permit holders 

are just over $9,000 per directed shark 

fishing vessel. This estimated reduction 

in revenue from shark landings could 

affect the profitability and even viability 

of some marginal shark fishery 

operations. Operations that have 

permits in other fisheries and can easily 

diversify are less likely to be as affected 

as those marginal operations. 

Nevertheless, the profitability of all 

directed shark fishing vessels would 

likely be reduced. Because the states of 

Florida, New Jersey, and North Carolina 

have the most directed shark permits, 

these states would be most negatively 

impacted by alternative suite 2. 

Directed shark permit holders using 

PLL gear would also see reduction of 

revenues under alternative suite 2 

because retention of sandbar sharks on 

PLL gear would be prohibited. On 

average, 80,825 lb dw of sandbar sharks 

were reported landed on PLL gear by 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40703 

directed shark permit holders from 2003 

to 2005 (HMS logbook data). In 2006 exvessel prices, this is equivalent to 

$117,510 in gross revenues. Given an 

average of 16.7 vessels landing sandbar 

sharks with PLL gear from 2003 to 2005, 

prohibition of sandbar sharks on PLL 

gear could result in a loss of gross 

revenues of $7,037 per vessel. 

Data on the reduction of per trip 

revenues also show a decline in revenue 

for directed permit holders. Under 

alternative suite 2, directed permit 

holders would be limited to 8 sandbar 

sharks per trip and 21 non-sandbar LCS 

per trip. In comparison, data indicate 

that under status quo, which has a 4,000 

lb dw LCS trip limit, the average 

number of sandbars and non-sandbar 

LCS landed per trip is 35 sandbars and 

32 non-sandbar LCS for all gear types 

reported in the Coastal Fisheries and 

HMS Logbooks. Based on 2006 ex-vessel 

prices, this is equivalent to $4,101 per 

trip. Revenue estimates on a regional 

trip basis of the status quo alternative 

were also based on species composition 

data attained from the BLL observer 

program data. Observer data indicate 

that between 2005 and 2006, 69 sandbar 

sharks and 35 non-sandbar LCS were 

caught per trip in the South Atlantic 

region, and 30 sandbar sharks and 83 

non-sandbar LCS were caught per trip in 

the Gulf of Mexico region. Based on 

these numbers and 2006 ex-vessel 

prices, revenues from South Atlantic 

trips are currently averaged at $4,743/ 

trip and Gulf of Mexico trip revenues 

averaged $4,101 per trip. 

Thus, given that the retention limits 

under alternative suite 2 (8 sandbars/ 

trip and 21 non-sandbar LCS/trip), the 

average revenue per trip is estimated to 

decrease. The reduced non-sandbar LCS 

retention limit of 21 sharks per trip is 

based on the average ratio of sandbars 

to non-sandbar LCS caught in the South 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to 

limit sandbar shark discards by 

fishermen deploying non-selective gear. 

In the Gulf of Mexico, the ratio of 

sandbars to other LCS caught is 1:4 

which, based on an 8 sandbar per trip 

retention limit, would equal 32 nonsandbar LCS per trip. However, such a 

high non-sandbar LCS retention limit 

would result in sandbar discards in the 

South Atlantic (approximately 65.3 mt 

dw). Therefore, a 21 non-sandbar LCS/ 

trip retention limit was set to balance 

discards versus catch in the two regions. 

This results in approximately 5 sandbar 

sharks being caught in the Gulf of 

Mexico region when the non-sandbar 

LCS retention limit/trip is filled (and 

therefore, only 86.1 mt dw of the 

sandbar quota would be filled). 

Therefore, gross revenues on a trip basis 

are estimated to be $1,262 per trip in the 

South Atlantic and $1,333 per trip in 

the Gulf of Mexico. From 2003 to 2005, 

there were 124 vessels that averaged 

more than 324 lb dw (or 8 sandbar 

sharks) of sandbar/trip. 

Incidental permit holders would also 

experience revenue declines under 

alternative suite 2 because they would 

be prohibited from landing sharks. On 

average, 66 incidental permit holders 

landed 12,994 lb dw per year of sandbar 

sharks and 46,333 lb dw per year of 

non-sandbar LCS from 2003 to 2005 

based on Federal and state shark dealer 

reports and Coastal Fisheries and HMS 

logbook data. Using 2006 ex-vessel 

prices, this is equivalent to gross 

revenues of $106,491 (assuming 5 

percent of the landings are fins and 95 

percent of the landings are carcass 

weight). Gross revenues averaged across 

the 66 vessels with incidental permits 

landing sharks were $1,614 per vessel. 

Since incidental permit holders would 

not be able to land any sharks under 

alternative suite 2, the 66 active vessels 

would be most negatively affected by 

this alternative suite. The states of 

Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, and 

North Carolina had the most incidental 

shark permit holders as of 2007 (144, 37, 

20, and 16, respectively). 

Alternative suite 2 would also require 

dealers to submit reports within 24 

hours of shark products being 

purchased. There could be negative 

economic impacts to Atlantic shark 

dealers as a result of the increased 

reporting requirement associated with 

this alternative. Currently, shark dealer 

reports are required to submit 

bimonthly reports, regardless of whether 

the dealer actually purchased any shark 

products. Reporting frequency would be 

increased to 24 hours of when shark 

products were purchased. While the 

increased reporting burden would not 

result in direct costs to the shark dealer, 

it would result in additional time spent 

submitting dealer reports. This 

represents an opportunity cost for 

dealers since that time could have been 

spent conducting other activities related 

to their business. Furthermore, since 

submitting the reports via regular mail 

would no longer be feasible, in order to 

comply with the requirement that dealer 

reports must be received by NMFS 

within 24 hours, it is assumed that 

dealers would have to submit dealer 

reports electronically or via facsimile. 

Dealers that do not currently possess a 

computer or fax machine would have to 

purchase one of these items. The 

increased reporting burden 

implemented in this alternative suite 

would be subject to approval under the 

PRA. Reporting requirements for shark 

vessel permit holders, including the 

need to carry an observer if selected and 

the need to submit vessel logbooks 

within seven days of completing a 

fishing trip would not be modified, 

resulting in neutral economic impacts. 

The other provisions of alternative 

suite 2 are the same as in alternative 

suite 4, which is the final action for this 

rulemaking. These provisions include: 

maintaining the 60 mt shark display and 

research quota; placement of porbeagle 

sharks on the prohibited list; quota 

carryover limited to 50 percent of base 

quota for species not overfished; no 

carryover for overfished, overfishing or 

unknown species; sharks fins must 

remain on the shark; removal of regions 

and seasons; and limiting the shark 

species that can be landed 

recreationally. The effects of these 

provisions are set forth in the discussion 

of alternative suite 4. 

This alternative suite was not selected 

for two primary reasons. First, this 

alternative does not address the impacts 

of continuing to catch sandbar sharks 

incidentally. These vessels will likely 

continue to incidentally catch sandbar 

sharks but then, under this alternative, 

those sharks would be required to be 

discarded. These discards would reduce 

potential revenues and possibly 

operating efficiency of vessels 

possessing incidental shark permits. 

Regulatory discards would likely lead to 

increases in mortality and slow efforts 

to end overfishing. Second, the 24 hour 

dealer reporting that would be required 

to effectively manage quotas would 

result in a significant increase in 

reporting burden for dealers. This 

alternative would therefore not 

minimize the economic cost to dealers 

in comparison to the preferred 

alternative. 

3. Alternative Suite 3 

Under alternative suite 3, the quotas 

for landing sandbar and non-sandbar 

LCS would also be reduced to the same 

level as that in alternative suite 2. 

However, because alternative suite 3 

would allow directed and incidental 

shark permit holders to land sandbar 

and non-sandbar LCS as well as SCS 

and pelagic sharks, the available 

sandbar and non-sandbar LCS quota 

would be spread over a larger universe 

of commercial permit holders. Unlike 

the status quo or alternative suite 2, the 

retention limits for sandbar sharks and 

non-sandbar LCS would be the same for 

both directed and incidental permit 

holders. Since directed permit holders 

presumably make a greater percentage of 

their gross revenues from shark 

landings, they are expected to have 

larger negative socioeconomic impacts 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

compared to incidental permit holders. 

(Revenues for incidental permit holders 

are actually expected to increase under 

this alternative.) The states of Florida, 

New Jersey, and North Carolina have the 

most directed permit holders. As with 

alternative suite 2, shark dealers could 

also experience negative impacts due to 

the reduction in the sandbar and other 

LCS quotas and retention limits, which 

would reduce the overall amount of 

sharks being landed. 

As stated under alternative suite 2, on 

average, directed permit holders landed 

1,286,447 lb dw of sandbar sharks per 

year and 1,498,111 of non-sandbar LCS 

per year from 2003 to 2005 based on 

Federal and state shark dealer reports 

and logbook data. In 2006 ex-vessel 

prices, this is equivalent to gross 

revenues of $4,702,031 (assuming 5 

percent of the landings are fins and 95 

percent of the landings are carcass 

weight). However, under alternative 3, 

the available sandbar and non-sandbar 

LCS quota would be spread over 

directed and incidental permit holders. 

Based on the retention limit of 4 

sandbar sharks and 10 non-sandbar LCS 

per vessel per trip, it is estimated that 

105.9 mt dw (233,467 lb dw) of the 

sandbar quota and 229.2 mt dw (505,294 

lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota 

could be landed under alternative suite 

3. Logbook data from 2003 and 2005 

showed that directed permit holders 

take, on average, 1,108 trips per year; 

the total number of shark trips taken by 

all permit holders was 1,143 trips. Thus, 

directed permit holders exhibited 

approximately 78 percent of the total 

fishing effort for sharks from 2003-2005. 

Based on this past effort, NMFS 

estimates that of the total sandbar and 

non-sandbar LCS quotas, approximately 

83 mt dw (183,073 lb dw) of sandbar 

quota and 180 mt dw (396,225 lb dw) 

of the non-sandbar LCS quota would be 

harvested by directed permit holders. 

Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is 

equivalent to $1,015,162 gross revenues 

for directed permit holders. These gross 

revenues indicate a 78 percent overall 

reduction compared to the period from 

2003 to 2005 (gross revenues based on 

current directed permit holders’

landings were $4,702,031). Again, the 

states of Florida, New Jersey, and North 

Carolina have the most directed permit 

holders. 

The data indicate that directed shark 

permit holders would experience a loss 

in revenue under alternative suite 3 

greater than under alternative suite 2, 

given that the available quota is shared 

with incidental permit holders under 

alternative suite 3. As stated in 

alternative 2, the status quo revenue was 

based on a 4,000 lb dw LCS trip limit 

for directed shark permit holders with 

average gross revenues in the South 

Atlantic of $4,743 per trip and average 

gross revenues in the Gulf of Mexico of 

$5,853 per trip. Under alternative suite 

3, the retention limits would be 4 

sandbars per trip and 10 non-sandbar 

LCS per trip. However, since the ratio of 

sandbars to non-sandbar LCS caught in 

the Gulf of Mexico is 1:4, NMFS 

estimates that approximately 3 sandbar 

sharks would be caught in the Gulf of 

Mexico region when the 10 non-sandbar 

LCS retention limit/trip is filled (10 

non-sandbar LCS / 4 = 2.5 sandbar 

sharks). Therefore, gross revenues on a 

trip basis are estimated to be $610 per 

trip in the South Atlantic and $670 per 

trip in the Gulf of Mexico. From 2003 

to 2005, there were 128 vessels that 

averaged more than 163 lb dw (or 4 

sandbar sharks) of sandbar/trip. 

Therefore, these vessels would be most 

negatively affected by retention limits 

under alternative suite 3. 

The revenue of incidental shark 

permit holders is expected to increase 

under alternative suite 3. On average, 

incidental permit holders landed 12,994 

lb dw of sandbar sharks and 46,333 lb 

dw of non-sandbar LCS based on 

Federal and state shark dealer reports 

and logbook data. In 2006 ex-vessel 

prices, this is equivalent to gross 

revenues of $106,491 (assuming 5 

percent of the landings are fins and 95 

percent of the landings are carcass 

weight). The available sandbar and nonsandbar LCS quotas would be averaged 

over directed and incidental permit 

holders under alternative suite 3. Based 

on past effort, it was assumed 305 trips 

could be made by incidental permit 

holders. This is 22 percent of the 

expected fishing effort. Therefore, given 

the 105.9 mt dw (233,467 lb dw) of the 

sandbar quota and 229.2 mt dw (505,294 

lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota 

that could be landed under alternative 

suite 3, approximately 23 mt dw (50,395 

lb dw) of sandbar quota and 50 mt dw 

(109,069 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS 

quota are anticipated to be landed by 

incidental permit holders. Based on 

2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent 

to $279,441 gross revenues for 

incidental permit holders. This would 

result in gross revenues that are 2.7 

times higher compared to 2003 to 2005 

(gross revenues based on current 

incidental permit holders’ landings 

were $106,491). 

This increase in gross revenues is due 

to the increase in retention limits for 

incidental permit holders. Under the 

status quo, incidental permit holders 

can retain 5 sharks from the LCS 

complex. However, under alternative 

suite 3, incidental permit holders would 

be able to retain 4 sandbars and 10 nonsandbar LCS or 14 LCS total. This 

retention limit is almost 3 times higher 

than what is currently allowed under 

the status quo. On average, incidental 

permit holders have been landing 2 

sandbar sharks and 3 non-sandbar LCS 

per trip. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, 

this is equivalent to $307 per trip. 

However, under alternative suite 3, 

incidental permit holders would make 

equivalent gross revenues per trip as 

directed permit holders: $610 per trip in 

the South Atlantic and $670 per trip in 

the Gulf of Mexico. This would result in 

gross revenues for incidental permit 

holders that are 2 to 3 times higher than 

gross revenues in 2003 to 2005 

depending on future fishing effort and 

catch composition. Therefore, there 

would be positive economic impacts for 

incidental permit holders under 

alternative suite 3. Since approximately 

66 vessels with incidental permit 

holders landed sandbar sharks or nonsandbar LCS in 2003 to 2005 in the 

Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks, 

these 66 vessels would have the largest 

economic benefits under alternative 

suite 3. However, if sharks become 

profitable for incidental permit holders 

under alternative suite 3, then more 

vessels with incidental permits may 

actively land sandbars and non-sandbar 

LCS in the future. Finally, the states of 

Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, and 

North Carolina had the most incidental 

shark permit holders in 2007. Therefore, 

these states would see the largest 

socioeconomic benefits for incidental 

permit holders under alternative suite 3. 

The other provisions of alternative 

suite 3 are the same as alternative suite 

4, which is the final action for this 

rulemaking. These provisions include 

maintaining the 60 mt shark display and 

research quota; placement of porbeagle 

sharks on the prohibited list; quota 

carryover limited to 50 percent of base 

quota for species not overfished; no 

carryover for overfished, overfishing or 

unknown species; sharks fins must 

remain on the shark; dealer reports 

received within 10 days of purchase; 

removal of regions and seasons; and 

limiting the shark species that can be 

landed recreationally. 

This alternative suite was not selected 

as the preferred alternative primarily 

based on its failure to achieve the 

ecological objectives of this rule and its 

economic impacts. Despite the time/area 

closures, alternative suite 3 would have 

a smaller reduction in dead discards of 

dusky sharks compared to alternative 

suite 2 since sandbar sharks would be 

allowed to be retained on PLL gear 

under alternative suite 3. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40705 

Negative economic impacts under 

alternative suite 3 are expected for 

directed permit holders (78-percent 

reduction in gross revenues compared to 

the status quo) as a result of the four 

sandbar per vessel per trip retention 

limit. Given that retention limits for 

sandbar and non-sandbar LCS are 

significantly lower than the limit under 

the status quo (91 and 69-percent 

reduction in sandbar and non-sandbar 

LCS retention limits, respectively, for 

directed permit holders), it is 

anticipated that there would be no 

directed shark fishery as a result of 

alternative suite 3. While an observer 

program would still operate under 

alternative suite 3, without a directed 

shark fishery, it is anticipated that the 

fishery dependent data collection would 

be limited, which could compromise 

data collection for future stock 

assessments. Alternative suite 4 should 

accomplish the necessary reductions in 

quota, retention limits, and fishing effort 

to prevent overfishing and allow stocks 

to rebuild while collecting valuable 

scientific data for NMFS. Therefore, due 

to concerns over dusky discards, quota 

monitoring, and data collection, NMFS 

is not implementing alternative suite 3 

at this time. 

4. Alternative Suite 4 

Alternative suite 4, the final action, 

establishes a program where vessels 

with directed or incidental shark 

permits could participate in a small 

research fishery for sandbar sharks that 

would harvest the entire 116.6 mt dw 

sandbar quota. There would be 100 

percent observer coverage on each 

research vessel, and only vessels 

participating in this program could land 

sandbar sharks. Vessels not 

participating in the research program 

could land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, and 

pelagic sharks. 

Alternative suite 4 was selected 

because it meets the objectives of this 

rulemaking while minimizing some of 

the economic impacts. Those objectives 

include: implement rebuilding plans for 

sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks; 

provide an opportunity for the 

sustainable harvest of blacktip sharks 

and other sharks, as appropriate; 

prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks; 

analyze BLL time/area closures and take 

necessary action, as appropriate; and 

improve, to the extent practicable, data 

collections or data collection programs. 

As detailed in the economic analysis in 

chapters 4 and 6 of Amendment 2 to the 

Consolidated HMS FMP, it is estimated 

that vessels in the shark research fishery 

could make $437,963 in gross revenues 

of sandbar and non-sandbar LCS 

landings under the adjusted quota. 

Since 5 to 10 vessels are anticipated to 

participate in the research fishery, 

NMFS estimates that an individual 

vessel could make between $87,593 (i.e., 

5 boats) to $43,796 (i.e., 10 boats) in 

gross revenues on sandbar shark and 

non-sandbar LCS landings. However, 

the vessels operating outside of the 

research fishery would have an adjusted 

regional non-sandbar LCS base quota of 

187.8 mt dw in the Atlantic region and 

390.5 mt dw in the Gulf of Mexico 

region. In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is 

equivalent to $516,285 in the Atlantic 

region and $1,273,269 in gross revenues 

in the Gulf of Mexico region. Divided by 

the remaining vessels it is estimated that 

the average gross revenues from shark 

per vessel would be just over $2,000 per 

trip. 

In addition, under the final action, 

porbeagle sharks would be authorized in 

recreational and commercial fisheries, 

but under a reduced TAC of 11.3 mt dw. 

Of the TAC, 1.7 mt dw would be 

available for harvest in commercial 

fisheries. Currently, the commercial 

quota for porbeagle sharks is 92 mt dw 

per year, however, this commercial 

quota has never been met. NMFS set 

new TAC and commercial quotas for 

porbeagle sharks based on present effort 

levels. Based on quota monitoring 

(which includes vessel trip reports) 

from 2003 to 2006, on average, 3,867 lb 

dw (1.7 mt dw) of porbeagle sharks were 

landed per year. Based on 2006 exvessel prices, this is equivalent to 

$7,378 in gross revenues. Since 

commercial fishermen would be 

allowed to continue to land porbeagle 

sharks at this level, there are no 

anticipated economic impacts of 

implementing the TAC. In addition, 

recreational anglers would still be 

allowed to land porbeagle sharks. 

Therefore, there are no negative 

economic impacts for recreational 

fishermen associated with the TAC. 

Data indicate that the preferred 

alternative maintains the annual gross 

revenues per vessel for vessels operating 

in the research fishery, while allowing 

other vessels outside of the research 

fishery to generate revenues at reduced 

levels. For example, in the no action 

alternative, it was estimated that if gross 

revenues for directed and incidental 

permit holders are averaged across the 

approximately 296 active directed and 

incidental shark permit holders, then 

the average annual gross revenues per 

shark fishing vessel is just over $20,000. 

Using the average landings for directed 

permit holder from 2003 to 2005, it is 

estimated that the 143 active directed 

permit holders generated average annual 

gross shark revenues of just under 

$33,000 from sharks. Under alternative 

2, the reduced gross revenues averaged 

across the 143 active directed permit 

holders are estimated to be just over 

$9,000 per directed shark fishing vessel 

and $1,221 per vessel per year for 

incidental permit holders that land 

sharks. Under alternative 3 this is 

reduced further to approximately $7,000 

($1,015,162 gross revenues/143 vessel) 

per directed shark fishing vessel per 

year. 

Alternative suite 4 has less economic 

impact on shark fishermen than 

alternative suite 5 (discussed below), 

but has greater impacts in the short-run 

than the status quo alternative. By 

allowing a limited number of historical 

participants to continue to harvest 

sharks under the research fishery, 

NMFS ensures that data for stock 

assessments and life history samples 

would continue to be collected. After 

comparing the alternative suites, NMFS 

determined that alternative suite 4 is the 

alternative that best meets the objectives 

of this rule while minimizing the 

economic impacts to shark permit 

holders. 

5. Alternative Suite 5 

Alternative suite 5 would have 

significant economic and social impacts 

on a variety of small entities, including: 

commercial shark permit holders, shark 

dealers, CHB and tournament operators, 

gear manufacturers, bait and ice 

suppliers, and other secondary 

industries dependent on the shark 

fishery. The level of economic impact 

would be directly proportional to the 

amount of revenues that each entity has 

realized from past participation in the 

shark fishery. Permit holders would be 

impacted differently depending on the 

quantity of sharks landed in the past. 

Vessels targeting sharks (directed 

permit holders) landed an average of 

1,263 mt dw of LCS, 223 mt dw SCS, 

and 173 mt dw pelagic sharks per year 

between 2003 to 2005 based on shark 

dealer landings and effort data from the 

Coastal Fisheries and HMS logbooks. 

The gross revenues based on 2006 exvessel prices of these landings are 

estimated at $4,702,031, $681,880, and 

$764,512 for LCS, SCS, and pelagic 

sharks, respectively. While it is assumed 

that few directed shark permit holders 

subsist entirely on revenues attained 

from the shark fishery, impacts would 

still be severe for those participants that 

depend on income from the directed 

shark fishery at certain times of the year. 

Because of the extensive economic 

impacts to shark directed permit holders 

as a result of this alternative suite, it is 

assumed that directed permit holders 

would likely pursue one of the 

following options as a result of closing 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40706 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the Atlantic shark fishery: (1) transfer 

fishing effort to other fisheries for which 

they are already permitted (snapper 

grouper, king and Spanish mackerel, 

tilefish, lobster, dolphin/wahoo, etc), (2) 

acquire the necessary permits to 

participate in other fisheries (both open 

access and/or limited access fisheries), 

or (3) relinquish all permits and leave 

the fishing industry. 

Incidental permit holders would face 

negative economic and social impacts as 

a result of closing the Atlantic shark 

fishery; however, these impacts would 

not be as severe as those experienced by 

directed permit holders. It is assumed 

that incidental permit holders receive 

the majority of their fishing income 

from participation in other fisheries, 

depending on the region and the type of 

gear predominantly fished (i.e., 

swordfish, tunas, snapper grouper, 

tilefish, dolphin/wahoo, lobster, etc.). 

NMFS estimates that, on average, 

between 2003 and 2005 incidental 

permit holders landed 26.9 mt dw LCS, 

17.3 mt dw SCS, and 45.5 mt dw 

pelagics per year based on shark dealer 

landings and effort data from the Coastal 

Fisheries and HMS logbooks. This 

equates in gross revenues, based on 

2006 ex-vessel prices for these landings, 

of $106,491, $52,882, and $201,061 for 

the respective species complexes. 

Incidental permit holders would likely 

have to increase effort in these other 

fisheries to replace lost revenues from 

landing sharks. Furthermore, these 

vessels may seek other permits (open 

access or limited access transferred from 

another vessel) or leave the fishing 

industry entirely. 

This alternative suite could also have 

negative economic and social impacts 

for shark dealers as they would no 

longer be authorized to purchase shark 

products from Federally permitted shark 

fishermen. Shark dealers also maintain 

permits to purchase other regionally 

caught fish products. Due to the brevity 

of the LCS shark fishing season, which 

is the shark fishery that accounts for the 

majority of the shark product revenue 

due to the fin value, many dealers also 

get revenue from purchasing fish 

products other than sharks. The 

majority of shark dealer permit holders 

hold permits to purchase other fish 

products, including swordfish, tunas, 

snapper grouper, tilefish, mackerel, 

lobster, and dolphin/wahoo among 

others. It is difficult to estimate, on an 

individual dealer basis, the percentage 

of revenues received exclusively from 

shark products. 

Shark fin dealers, specializing in the 

purchase of shark fins from Federal and 

state permitted dealers, would also 

experience negative social and 

economic impacts as a result of closing 

the shark fishery. These dealers receive 

virtually all of their income from 

purchasing shark fins and shipping 

them to exporters. Exporters then 

transport the fins to global and domestic 

markets. This alternative suite would 

likely force shark fin dealers to leave the 

industry or focus on purchasing other 

fishery products, resulting in significant 

economic impacts to the individuals 

involved in this trade. 

It is difficult to estimate the economic 

and social impacts that would be 

experienced by various small entities 

that support the shark fishery, e.g., 

purveyors of bait, ice, fishing gear, and 

fishing gear manufactures. However, 

these impacts would likely be negative. 

It is difficult to estimate these impacts 

as it is uncertain to what extent vessels 

that were fishing for sharks would 

redistribute their fishing effort to other 

fisheries, or simply cease fishing 

operations. If the majority of vessels 

affected by a shark fishery closure 

simply displace effort to other fisheries, 

it is assumed that they would still be 

dependent on small entities for their 

bait, ice, and gear as these are products 

essential for fishing excursions targeting 

any species. Redistributing effort to 

other fisheries would mitigate negative 

economic impacts. However, if a 

significant number of vessels simply 

cease fishing operations or scale back 

considerably, then severe economic 

consequences would be imparted on 

these support industries as a result. 

Reporting and observer requirements 

would also change under alternative 

suite 5. Alternative suite 5 would 

increase the proportion of fishermen 

completing the Coastal Fisheries 

Logbook who are then selected to report 

information on fish that are discarded. 

Currently, 20 percent of the fishermen 

completing this logbook are selected. 

This percentage would be increased to 

facilitate improved data available for 

shark interactions with longline and 

gillnet gear. This information would be 

especially useful because sharks could 

no longer be landed and the existing 

logbook only requires fishermen to 

provide data on landed fish. Increasing 

the number of fishermen who are 

selected to provide this data would 

result in negative economic and social 

impacts because it would require 

additional paperwork to be filled out. 

Because NMFS would close the fishery 

under this alternative suite, vessels 

would no longer be required to take an 

observer. Shark dealers would also no 

longer be required to submit dealer 

reports regarding sharks purchased. 

Seasons and regions for the 

commercial Atlantic shark fishery 

would no longer apply as this 

alternative suite would close the fishery. 

Closing the Atlantic recreational shark 

fishery would have negative economic 

and social impacts, particularly for CHB 

operators who specialize in landing 

sharks and operators of shark 

tournaments that have prize categories 

for landing sharks. It is difficult to 

estimate the number of CHB operators 

that specialize in shark charters as the 

permit covers any participant targeting 

swordfish, sharks, tunas, and billfish. 

Many CHB operators target a variety of 

species depending on client interests, 

weather, time of year, and 

oceanographic conditions. CHB 

operators specializing in shark fishing 

charters would have to target other HMS 

or non HMS species to replace revenues 

lost as a result of customers not being 

able to land sharks. However, not all 

customers necessarily want to land 

sharks. CHB operators would still be 

able to catch sharks; however, all sharks 

(regardless of species) would need to be 

released in a manner that maximizes 

their chances of survival. Catering 

business operations to clientele 

interested in catch and release fishing 

for sharks might mitigate some of the 

negative economic impacts. Shark 

tournaments that reward prizes for 

landing sharks would be negatively 

impacted as a result of this alternative 

suite. In 2007, there were 59 

tournaments with prize categories for 

pelagic sharks and 42 (combined) 

tournaments for LCS and SCS. The 

majority of these tournaments target 

pelagic sharks and are held in the North 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. 

These tournaments would either modify 

their rules to only allow points/prizes 

for released sharks or these tournaments 

would cease to exist. Economic impacts 

on small entities such as restaurants, 

hotels, gear manufacturers, retail stores 

selling fishing supplies, and marinas in 

the vicinity of where these tournaments 

are held would also experience negative 

economic impacts. 

HMS Angling permit holders would 

also experience negative impacts, 

despite the fact that they would still be 

able to catch and release sharks. 

Landings would not be permitted by any 

recreational anglers as a result of this 

alternative suite. 

Closing the Atlantic shark fishery 

would have negative economic impacts 

on global shark fin markets. As a result 

of this alternative suite, U.S. flagged 

vessels would no longer be able to 

contribute to the global demand for 

shark fins. This would disadvantage 

U.S. shark fishermen as global markets 

would likely need to purchase their 

shark fins from other markets. However, 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40707 

the United States is not a significant 

producer of shark products globally. 

Based on data from the United Nations 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO), less than one percent of global 

shark landings occur in the U.S. 

Atlantic Ocean. 

While alternative suite 5 would meet 

the objectives of this rule, it would have 

the highest negative economic impacts 

of the alternatives considered. There 

would be significant reductions in 

revenues for shark dealers and fishing 

vessels involved in the shark fishery. 

Some small businesses dependent on 

commercial shark fishing may cease 

operating as a result of prohibiting the 

commercial harvest of shark species. 

Therefore, this alternative was not 

selected. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The Agency shall 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. Copies of the 

compliance guide for this final rule are 

available (see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 600 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Foreign relations, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

50 CFR Part 635 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: June 16, 2008. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 635 are 

amended as follows: 

Chapter VI 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. 

■ 2. In § 600.1203, paragraph (a)(9) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.1203 Prohibitions. 

(a) * * * 

(9) Fail to maintain a shark in the 

form specified in §§ 600.1204(h) and 

635.30(c) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 600.1204, paragraphs (h) and (j) 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.1204 Shark finning; possession at 

sea and landing of shark fins. 

* * * * * 

(h) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued a Federal 

Atlantic commercial shark limited 

access permit and who lands shark in or 

from the U.S. EEZ in an Atlantic coastal 

port must comply with regulations 

found at § 635.30(c) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(j) No person aboard a vessel that has 

been issued a Federal Atlantic 

commercial shark limited access permit 

shall possess on board shark fins 

without the fins being naturally 

attached to the corresponding 

carcass(es), although sharks may be 

dressed at sea. 

* * * * * 

PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY 

MIGRATORY SPECIES 

■ 4. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 635 continues to read as follows: 

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

1801 et seq. 

■ 5. In § 635.2, the definitions of ‘‘First 

receiver’’, ‘‘Naturally attached’’, ‘‘Nonsandbar LCS’’, and ‘‘Shark research 

permit’’ are added in alphabetical order 

and the definitions of ‘‘Dress’’ and 

‘‘Dressed weight (dw)’’ are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 635.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Dress, for swordfish, tunas, and 

billfish, means to process a fish by 

removal of head, viscera, and fins, but 

does not include removal of the 

backbone, halving, quartering, or 

otherwise further reducing the carcass. 

For sharks, dress means to process a fish 

by removal of head and viscera, but 

does not include removal of the fins, 

backbone, halving, quartering, or 

otherwise further reducing the carcass. 

Dressed weight (dw), for swordfish, 

tunas, and billfish, means the weight of 

a fish after it has been dressed. For 

sharks, dressed weight means the 

weight of a fish after it has been dressed 

and had its fins, including the tail, 

removed. 

* * * * * 

First receiver means any entity, 

person, or company that takes, for 

commercial purposes (other than solely 

for transport), immediate possession of 

the fish, or any part of the fish, as the 

fish are offloaded from a fishing vessel 

of the United States, as defined under 

§ 600.10 of this chapter, whose owner or 

operator has been issued, or should 

have been issued, a valid permit under 

this part. 

* * * * * 

Naturally attached refers to shark fins 

that remain attached to the shark carcass 

via at least some portion of uncut skin. 

* * * * * 

Non-sandbar LCS means one of the 

species, or part thereof, listed under 

heading A of Table 1 in Appendix A of 

this part other than the sandbar shark 

(Carcharhinus plumbeus). 

* * * * * 

Shark research permit means a permit 

issued to catch and land a limited 

number of sharks to maintain time 

series for stock assessments and for 

other scientific research purposes. 

These permits may be issued only to the 

owner of a vessel who has been issued 

either a directed or incidental shark 

LAP. The permit is specific to the 

commercial shark vessel and owner 

combination and is valid only per the 

terms and conditions listed on the 

permit. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 635.4, paragraphs (a)(5) and 

(g)(2) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.4 Permits and fees. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) Display upon offloading. Upon 

offloading of Atlantic HMS, the owner 

or operator of the harvesting vessel must 

present for inspection the vessel’s HMS 

Charter/Headboat permit; Atlantic 

tunas, shark, or swordfish permit; and/ 

or the shark research permit to the first 

receiver. The permit(s) must be 

presented prior to completing any 

applicable landing report specified at 

§ 635.5(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(2)(i). 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) Shark. A first receiver, as defined 

in § 635.2, of Atlantic sharks must 

possess a valid dealer permit. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 635.5, paragraphs (b)(1)(i), 

(b)(1)(ii), and (b)(1)(iv) are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Dealers that have been issued or 

should have been issued an Atlantic 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40708 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

tunas, swordfish, and/or sharks dealer 

permit under § 635.4 must submit to 

NMFS all reports required under this 

section. All reports must be speciesspecific, must include information 

about all HMS landed, regardless of 

where harvested or whether the vessel 

is federally permitted under § 635.4 and, 

for sharks, must specify the total shark 

fin weight separately from the weight of 

the shark carcass. As stated in 

§ 635.4(a)(6), failure to comply with 

these recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements may result in the existing 

dealer permit being revoked, suspended, 

or modified, and in the denial of any 

permit applications. 

(ii) Reports of Atlantic tunas, 

swordfish, and/or sharks received by 

dealers from U.S. vessels, as defined 

under § 600.10 of this chapter, on the 

first through the 15th of each month, 

must be received by NMFS not later 

than the 25th of that month. Reports of 

Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and/or sharks 

received on the 16th through the last day 

of each month must be received by 

NMFS not later than the 10th of the 

following month. If a dealer issued an 

Atlantic tunas, swordfish, or sharks 

dealer permit under § 635.4 has not 

received any Atlantic HMS from U.S. 

vessels during a reporting period as 

specified in this section, he or she must 

still submit the report required under 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section stating 

that no Atlantic HMS were received. 

This negative report must be received by 

NMFS for the applicable reporting 

period as specified in this section. This 

negative reporting requirement does not 

apply for bluefin tuna. 

* * * * * 

(iv) The dealer may mail or fax such 

report to an address designated by 

NMFS or may hand-deliver such report 

to a state or Federal fishery port agent 

designated by NMFS. If the dealer handdelivers the report to a port agent, the 

dealer must deliver such report for 

Atlantic tunas, swordfish, or sharks no 

later than the prescribed received-by 

date for the reporting period, as required 

in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 635.21, paragraphs (d)(1)(i), 

(d)(1)(ii), and (d)(3)(ii) are revised, and 

paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.21 Gear operation and deployment 

restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed area 

from January 1 through July 31 each 

calendar year; 

(ii) The areas designated at 

§ 622.33(a)(1) through (3) of this 

chapter, year-round; and 

(iii) The areas described in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(iii)(A) through (H) of this section, 

year-round. 

(A) Snowy Grouper Wreck. Bounded 

by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 33°25′ 77°04.75′ 

B 33°34.75′ 76°51.3′ 

C 33°25.5′ 76°46.5′ 

D 33°15.75′ 77°00.0′ 

A 33°25′ 77°04.75′ 

(B) South Carolina A. Bounded on the 

north by 32°53.5′ N. lat.; on the south 

by 32°48.5′ N. lat.; on the east by 

78°04.75′ W. long.; and on the west by 

78°16.75′ W. long. 

(C) Edisto. Bounded on the north by 

32°24′ N. lat.; on the south by 32°18.5′ 

N. lat.; on the east by 78°54.0′ W. long.; 

and on the west by 79°06.0′ W. long. 

(D) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef. 

Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 

order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 32°04′ 79°12′ 

B 32°08.5′ 79°07.5′ 

C 32°06′ 79°05′ 

D 32°01.5′ 79°09.3′ 

A 32°04′ 79°12′ 

(E) Georgia. Bounded by rhumb lines 

connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 31°43′ 79°31′ 

B 31°43′ 79°21′ 

C 31°34′ 79°29′ 

D 31°34′ 79°39′ 

A 31°43′ 79°31′ 

(F) North Florida. Bounded on the 

north by 30°29′ N. lat.; on the south by 

30°19′ N. lat.; on the east by 80°02′ W. 

long.; and on the west by 80°14′ W. 

long. 

(G) St. Lucie Hump. Bounded on the 

north by 27°08′ N. lat.; on the south by 

27°04′ N. lat.; on the east by 79°58′ W. 

long.; and on the west by 80°00′ W. 

long. 

(H) East Hump. Bounded by rhumb 

lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 24°36.5′ 80°45.5′ 

B 24°32′ 80°36′ 

C 24°27.5′ 80°38.5′ 

D 24°32.5′ 80°48′ 

A 24°36.5′ 80°45.5′ 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Handling and release 

requirements. Sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation gear, as required by 

paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, must 

be used to disengage any hooked or 

entangled sea turtle as stated in 

paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This 

mitigation gear should also be employed 

to disengage any hooked or entangled 

species of prohibited sharks as listed 

under heading D of Table 1 of Appendix 

A of this part, any hooked or entangled 

species of sharks that exceed the 

retention limits as specified in 

§ 635.24(a), and any hooked or 

entangled smalltooth sawfish. In 

addition, if a smalltooth sawfish is 

caught, the fish should be kept in the 

water while maintaining water flow 

over the gills and the fish should be 

examined for research tags. All 

smalltooth sawfish must be released in 

a manner that will ensure maximum 

probability of survival, but without 

removing the fish from the water or any 

research tags from the fish. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 635.22, paragraph (c) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 635.22 Recreational retention limits. 

* * * * * 

(c) Sharks. (1) One of each of the 

following sharks may be retained per 

vessel per trip, subject to the size limits 

described in § 635.20(e): any of the nonridgeback sharks listed under heading 

A.2 of Table 1 in Appendix A of this 

part, tiger (Galeocerdo cuvieri), blue 

(Prionace glauca), common thresher 

(Alopias vulpinus), oceanic whitetip 

(Carcharhinus longimanus), porbeagle 

(Lamna nasus), shortfin mako (Isurus 

oxyricnchus), Atlantic sharpnose 

(Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), finetooth 

(C. isodon), blacknose (C. acronotus), 

and bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo). 

(2) In addition to the shark listed 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 

one Atlantic sharpnose shark and one 

bonnethead shark may be retained per 

person per trip. Regardless of the length 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40709 

of a trip, no more than one Atlantic 

sharpnose shark and one bonnethead 

shark per person may be possessed on 

board a vessel. 

(3) No prohibited sharks, including 

parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, 

which are listed in Table 1 of Appendix 

A to this part under prohibited sharks, 

may be retained regardless of where 

harvested. 

(4) The recreational retention limit for 

sharks applies to any person who fishes 

in any manner, except to persons aboard 

a vessel that has been issued an Atlantic 

incidental or directed shark LAP under 

§ 635.4. If a commercial Atlantic shark 

quota is closed under § 635.28, the 

recreational retention limit for sharks 

and no sale provision in paragraph (a) 

of this section may be applied to 

persons aboard a vessel issued an 

Atlantic incidental or directed shark 

LAP under § 635.4, only if that vessel 

has also been issued an HMS Charter/ 

Headboat permit issued under § 635.4 

and is engaged in a for-hire fishing trip. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 635.24, paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.24 Commercial retention limits for 

sharks and swordfish. 

* * * * * 

(a) Sharks. (1) A person who owns or 

operates a vessel that has been issued a 

valid shark research permit under 

§ 635.32(f) and who has a NMFSapproved observer on board may retain, 

possess, or land LCS, including sandbar 

sharks, in excess of the retention limits 

in paragraphs (a)(2) through (6) of this 

section. The amount of LCS that can be 

landed by such a person will vary as 

specified on the shark research permit. 

Only a person who owns or operates a 

vessel issued a valid shark research 

permit with a NMFS-approved observer 

on board may retain, possess, or land 

sandbar sharks. 

(2) From July 24, 2008 through 

December 31, 2012, a person who owns 

or operates a vessel that has been issued 

a directed LAP for sharks and does not 

have a valid shark research permit, or a 

person who owns or operates a vessel 

that has been issued a directed LAP for 

sharks and that has been issued a valid 

shark research permit but does not have 

a NMFS-approved observer on board, 

may retain, possess, or land no more 

than 33 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per 

trip if the fishery is open per § 635.27 

and § 635.28. Such persons may not 

retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks. 

As of January 1, 2013, a person who 

owns or operates a vessel that has been 

issued a directed LAP for sharks and 

does not have a valid shark research 

permit, or a person who owns or 

operates a vessel that has been issued a 

directed LAP for sharks and that has 

been issued a shark research permit but 

does not have a NMFS-approved 

observer on board, may retain, possess, 

or land no more than 36 non-sandbar 

LCS per vessel per trip if the fishery is 

open per § 635.27 and § 635.28. Such 

persons may not retain, possess, or land 

sandbar sharks. 

(3) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued an incidental 

LAP for sharks and does not have a 

valid shark research permit, or a person 

who owns or operates a vessel that has 

been issued an incidental LAP for 

sharks and that has been issued a valid 

shark research permit but does not have 

a NMFS-approved observer on board, 

may retain, possess, or land no more 

than 3 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per 

trip if the fishery is open per § 635.27 

and § 635.28. Such persons may not 

retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks. 

(4) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued a directed 

shark LAP may retain, possess, or land 

SCS and pelagic sharks if the SCS or 

pelagic shark fishery is open per 

§ 635.27 and § 635.28. A person who 

owns or operates a vessel that has been 

issued an incidental LAP for sharks may 

retain, possess, or land no more than 16 

SCS and pelagic sharks, combined, per 

trip, if the fishery is open per § 635.27 

and § 635.28. 

(5) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued an incidental 

or directed LAP for sharks may not 

retain, possess, land, sell, or purchase 

prohibited sharks, including any parts 

or pieces of prohibited sharks, which 

are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to 

this part under prohibited sharks. 

(6) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued either an 

incidental or directed LAP for sharks, 

and who decides to retain sharks, must 

retain, subject to the trip limits, all 

dead, legal-sized, non-prohibited sharks 

that are brought onboard the vessel and 

cannot replace those sharks with sharks 

of higher quality or size that are caught 

later in the trip. Any fish that are to be 

released cannot be brought onboard the 

vessel and must be released in the water 

in a manner that maximizes survival. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In § 635.27, paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(2) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.27 Quotas. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Commercial quotas. The 

commercial quotas for sharks specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vi) 

of this section apply to all sharks 

harvested from the management unit, 

regardless of where harvested. Sharks 

taken and landed from state waters, 

even by fishermen without Federal 

shark permits, must be counted against 

the fishery quota. Commercial quotas 

are specified for each of the 

management groups of sandbar sharks, 

non-sandbar LCS, SCS, blue sharks, 

porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks 

other than blue or porbeagle sharks. Any 

sharks landed as unclassified will be 

counted against the appropriate species’

quota based on the species composition 

calculated from data collected by 

observers on non-research trips and/or 

dealer data. No prohibited sharks, 

including parts or pieces of prohibited 

sharks, which are listed under heading 

D of Table 1 of Appendix A to this part, 

may be retained except as authorized 

under § 635.32. 

(i) Fishing seasons. The fishing season 

for sandbar sharks, non-sandbar LCS, 

small coastal sharks, and all pelagic 

sharks will begin on January 1 and end 

on December 31. 

(ii) Regions. (A) The commercial 

quotas for non-sandbar LCS are split 

between two regions: the Gulf of Mexico 

and the Atlantic. For the purposes of 

this section, the boundary between the 

Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic 

region is defined as a line beginning on 

the east coast of Florida at the mainland 

at 25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due east. 

Any water and land to the south and 

west of that boundary is considered, for 

the purposes of quota monitoring and 

setting of quotas, to be within the Gulf 

of Mexico region. Any water and land 

to the north and east of that boundary, 

for the purposes of quota monitoring 

and setting of quotas, is considered to be 

within the Atlantic region. 

(B) Except for non-sandbar LCS 

landed by a vessels issued a valid shark 

research permit with a NMFS-approved 

observer onboard, any non-sandbar LCS 

reported by dealers located in the 

Florida Keys areas or in the Gulf of 

Mexico will be counted against the nonsandbar LCS Gulf of Mexico regional 

quota. Except for non-sandbar LCS 

landed by a vessels issued a valid shark 

research permit with a NMFS-approved 

observer onboard, any non-sandbar LCS 

reported by dealers located in the 

Atlantic region will be counted against 

the non-sandbar LCS Atlantic regional 

quota. Non-sandbar LCS landed by a 

vessel issued a valid shark research 

permit with a NMFS-approved observer 

onboard will be counted against the 

non-sandbar LCS research fishery quota 

using scientific observer reports. 

(iii) Sandbar sharks. The base annual 

commercial quota for sandbar sharks is 

116.6 mt dw. However, from July 24, 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40710 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

2008 through December 31, 2012, to 

account for overharvests that occurred 

in 2007, the adjusted base quota is 87.9 

mt dw. Both the base quota and the 

adjusted base quota may be further 

adjusted per paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this 

section. This quota is available only to 

the owners of commercial shark vessels 

that have been issued a valid shark 

research permit and that have a NMFSapproved observer onboard. 

(iv) Non-sandbar LCS. The total base 

quota for non-sandbar LCS is 677.8 mt 

dw. This base quota is split between the 

two regions and the shark research 

fishery as follows: Gulf of Mexico = 

439.5 mt dw; Atlantic = 188.3 mt dw; 

and Shark Research Fishery = 50 mt dw. 

However, from July 24, 2008 through 

December 31, 2012, to account for 

overharvests that occurred in 2007, the 

total adjusted base quota is 615.8 mt dw. 

This adjusted base quota is split 

between the regions and the shark 

research fishery as follows: Gulf of 

Mexico = 390.5 mt dw; Atlantic = 187.8 

mt dw; and Shark Research Fishery = 

37.5 mt dw. Both the base quota and the 

adjusted base quota may be further 

adjusted per paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this 

section. 

(v) Small coastal sharks. The base 

annual commercial quota for small 

coastal sharks is 454 mt dw, unless 

adjusted pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(vii) of this section. 

(vi) Pelagic sharks. The base annual 

commercial quotas for pelagic sharks are 

273 mt dw for blue sharks, 1.7 mt dw 

for porbeagle sharks, and 488 mt dw for 

pelagic sharks other than blue sharks or 

porbeagle sharks, unless adjusted 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this 

section. 

(vii) Annual adjustments. NMFS will 

publish in the Federal Register any 

annual adjustments to the base annual 

commercial quotas or the 2008 through 

2012 adjusted base quotas. The base 

annual quota and the adjusted base 

annual quota will not be available, and 

the fishery will not open, until such 

adjustments are published and effective 

in the Federal Register. 

(A) Overharvests. If the available 

quota for sandbar sharks, small coastal, 

porbeagle shark, and pelagic sharks 

other than blue or porbeagle sharks is 

exceeded in any fishing season, NMFS 

will deduct an amount equivalent to the 

overharvest(s) from the following 

fishing season or, depending on the 

level of overharvest(s), NMFS may 

deduct an amount equivalent to the 

overharvest(s) spread over a number of 

subsequent fishing seasons to a 

maximum of five years. If the annual 

quota in a particular region or in the 

research fishery for non-sandbar LCS is 

exceeded in any fishing season, NMFS 

will deduct an amount equivalent to the 

overharvest(s) from the following 

fishing season or, depending on the 

level of overharvest(s), NMFS may 

deduct an amount equivalent to the 

overharvest(s) spread over a number of 

subsequent fishing seasons to a 

maximum of five years, in the specific 

region or research fishery where the 

overharvest occurred. If the blue shark 

quota is exceeded, NMFS will reduce 

the annual commercial quota for pelagic 

sharks by the amount that the blue shark 

quota is exceeded prior to the start of 

the next fishing season or, depending on 

the level of overharvest(s), deduct an 

amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) 

spread over a number of subsequent 

fishing seasons to a maximum of five 

years. 

(B) Underharvests. If an annual quota 

for sandbar sharks, SCS, blue sharks, 

porbeagle sharks, or pelagic sharks other 

than blue or porbeagle is not exceeded, 

NMFS may adjust the annual quota 

depending on the status of the stock or 

quota group. If the annual quota for nonsandbar LCS is not exceeded in either 

region or in the research fishery, NMFS 

may adjust the annual quota for that 

region or the research fishery depending 

on the status of the stock or quota group. 

If the stock (e.g., sandbar shark, 

porbeagle shark, pelagic shark, or blue 

shark) or specific species within a quota 

group (e.g., non-sandbar LCS or SCS) is 

declared to be overfished, to have 

overfishing occurring, or to have an 

unknown status, NMFS will not adjust 

the following fishing year’s quota for 

any underharvest, and the following 

fishing year’s quota will be equal to the 

base annual quota (or the adjusted base 

quota for sandbar and non-sandbar LCS 

until December 31, 2012). If the stock is 

not declared to be overfished, to have 

overfishing occurring, or to have an 

unknown status, NMFS may increase 

the following year’s base annual quota 

(or the adjusted base quota for sandbar 

and non-sandbar LCS until December 

31, 2012) by an equivalent amount of 

the underharvest up to 50 percent above 

the base annual quota. For the nonsandbar LCS fishery, underharvests are 

not transferable between regions and/or 

the research fishery. 

(2) Public display and non-specific 

research quota. The base annual quota 

for persons who collect non-sandbar 

LCS, SCS, pelagic sharks, blue sharks, 

porbeagle sharks, or prohibited species 

under a display permit or EFP is 57.2 mt 

ww (41.2 mt dw). The base annual quota 

for persons who collect sandbar sharks 

under a display permit is 1.4 mt ww (1 

mt dw) and under an EFP is 1.4 mt ww 

(1 mt dw). No persons may collect 

dusky sharks under a display permit or 

EFP. All sharks collected under the 

authority of a display permit or EFP, 

subject to restrictions at § 635.32, will 

be counted against these quotas. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. In § 635.28, paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.28 Closures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) If quota is available as specified by 

a publication in the Federal Register, 

the commercial fisheries for sandbar 

shark, non-sandbar LCS, SCS, porbeagle 

sharks, blue sharks, and pelagic sharks 

other than blue or porbeagle sharks will 

remain open as specified at 

§ 635.27(b)(1). 

(2) When NMFS calculates that the 

fishing season landings for sandbar 

shark, non-sandbar LCS, SCS, blue 

sharks, porbeagle sharks, or pelagic 

sharks other than blue or porbeagle 

sharks has reached or is projected to 

reach 80 percent of the available quota 

as specified in § 635.27(b)(1), NMFS 

will file for publication with the Office 

of the Federal Register a notice of 

closure for that shark species group and/ 

or region that will be effective no fewer 

than 5 days from date of filing. From the 

effective date and time of the closure 

until NMFS announces, via a notice in 

the Federal Register, that additional 

quota is available and the season is 

reopened, the fishery for the shark 

species group and, for non-sandbar LCS, 

region is closed, even across fishing 

years. 

(3) When the fishery for a shark 

species group and/or region is closed, a 

fishing vessel, issued an Atlantic Shark 

LAP pursuant to § 635.4, may not 

possess or sell a shark of that species 

group and/or region, except under the 

conditions specified in § 635.22(a) and 

(c) or if the vessel possesses a valid 

shark research permit under § 635.32 

and an NMFS-approved observer is 

onboard. A shark dealer, issued a permit 

pursuant to § 635.4, may not purchase 

or receive a shark of that species group 

and/or region from a vessel issued an 

Atlantic Shark LAP, except that a 

permitted shark dealer or processor may 

possess sharks that were harvested, offloaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, 

prior to the effective date of the closure 

and were held in storage. Additionally, 

a permitted shark dealer or processor 

may possess non-sandbar sharks that 

were harvested by a vessel issued a 

valid shark research permit with a 

NMFS-approved observer onboard as 

long as the non-sandbar shark research 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40711 

fishery is open. Under a closure for a 

shark species group, a shark dealer, 

issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, 

in accordance with state regulations, 

purchase or receive a shark of that 

species group if the sharks were 

harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, 

or bartered from a vessel that fishes only 

in state waters and that has not been 

issued a Shark LAP, HMS Angling 

permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat 

permit pursuant to § 635.4. 

Additionally, under a closure for a shark 

species group and/or regional closure, a 

shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant, 

to § 635.4 may purchase or receive a 

shark of that species group if the sharks 

were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, 

traded, or bartered from a vessel issued 

a valid shark research permit (per 

§ 635.32) that had a NMFS-approved 

observer on board during the trip sharks 

were collected. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. In § 635.30, paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (4) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.30 Possession at sea and landing. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Notwithstanding the regulations 

issued at part 600, subpart N of this 

chapter, a person who owns or operates 

a vessel issued a Federal Atlantic 

commercial shark LAP must maintain 

all the shark fins including the tail on 

the shark carcass until the shark has 

been offloaded from the vessel. While 

sharks are on board and when sharks are 

being offloaded, persons issued a 

Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP 

are subject to the regulations at part 600, 

subpart N, of this chapter. 

(2) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has a valid Federal Atlantic 

commercial shark LAP must maintain 

the shark intact through offloading 

except that the shark may be dressed. 

All fins, including the tail, must remain 

naturally attached to the shark through 

offloading. While on the vessel, fins 

may be sliced so that the fin can be 

folded along the carcass for storage 

purposes as long as the fin remains 

naturally attached to the carcass via at 

least a small portion of uncut skin. The 

fins and tail may only be removed from 

the carcass once the shark has been 

landed and offloaded. 

(3) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued a Federal 

Atlantic commercial shark LAP and 

who lands sharks in an Atlantic coastal 

port must have all fins and carcasses 

weighed and recorded on the weighout 

slips specified in § 635.5(a)(2) and in 

accordance with regulations at part 600, 

subpart N, of this chapter. Persons may 

not possess any shark fins not naturally 

attached to a shark carcass on board a 

fishing vessel at any time. 

(4) Persons aboard a vessel that does 

not have a commercial permit for shark 

must maintain a shark in or from the 

EEZ intact through landing with the 

head, tail, and all fins attached. The 

shark may be bled. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. In § 635.31, paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(4) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and 

purchase. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Persons that own or operate a 

vessel that possesses a shark from the 

management unit may sell such shark 

only if the vessel has a valid commercial 

shark permit issued under this part. 

Persons may possess and sell a shark 

only when the fishery for that species 

group and/or region has not been 

closed, as specified in § 635.28(b). 

* * * * * 

(4) Only dealers that have a valid 

shark dealer permit may purchase shark 

from the owner or operator of a fishing 

vessel. Dealers may purchase a shark 

only from an owner or operator of a 

vessel who has a valid commercial 

shark permit issued under this part, 

except that dealers may purchase a 

shark from an owner or operator of a 

vessel that does not have a commercial 

permit for shark if that vessel fishes 

exclusively in state waters. Dealers may 

purchase a sandbar shark only from an 

owner or operator of a vessel who has 

a valid shark research permit and who 

had a NMFS-approved observer onboard 

the vessel for the trip in which the 

sandbar shark was collected. Dealers 

may purchase a shark from an owner or 

operator of fishing vessel that has a 

permit issued under this part only when 

the fishery for that species group and/ 

or region has not been closed, as 

specified in § 635.28(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 15. In § 635.32, paragraphs (a)(2), (f), 

and (g) are revised and paragraph (h) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 635.32 Specifically authorized activities. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Activities subject to the provisions 

of this section include, but are not 

limited to: scientific research resulting 

in, or likely to result in, the take, 

harvest, or incidental mortality of 

Atlantic HMS; exempted fishing and 

educational activities; programs under 

which regulated species retained in 

contravention to otherwise applicable 

regulations may be donated through 

approved food bank networks; or 

chartering arrangements. Such activities 

must be authorized in writing and are 

subject to all conditions specified in any 

letter of acknowledgment, EFP, 

scientific research permit, display 

permit, chartering permit, or shark 

research permit issued in response to 

requests for authorization under this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(f) Shark research permits. (1) For 

activities consistent with the purposes 

of this section and § 600.745(b)(1) of this 

chapter, NMFS may issue shark research 

permits. 

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

§ 600.745 of this chapter and other 

provisions of this part, a valid shark 

research permit is required to fish for, 

take, retain, or possess Atlantic sharks, 

including sandbar sharks, in excess of 

the retention limits described in 

§ 635.24(a). A valid shark research 

permit must be on board the harvesting 

vessel, must be available for inspection 

when the shark is landed, and must be 

presented for inspection upon request of 

an authorized officer. A shark research 

permit is only valid for the vessel and 

owner(s) combination specified and 

cannot be transferred to another vessel 

or owner(s). A shark research permit is 

only valid for the retention limits, time, 

area, gear specified, and other terms and 

conditions as listed on the permit and 

only when a NMFS-approved observer 

is onboard. Species landed under a 

shark research permit shall be counted 

against the appropriate quota specified 

in § 635.27 or as otherwise provided in 

the shark research permit. 

(3) Regardless of the number of 

applicants, NMFS will issue only a 

limited number of shark research 

permits depending on available quotas 

as described in § 635.27, research needs 

for stock assessments and other 

scientific purposes, and the number of 

sharks expected to be harvested by 

vessels issued LAPs for sharks. 

(4) In addition to the workshops 

required under § 635.8, persons issued a 

shark research permit, and/or operators 

of vessels specified on the shark 

research permit, may be required to 

attend other workshops (e.g., shark 

identification workshops, captain’s 

meeting, etc.) as deemed necessary by 

NMFS to ensure the collection of high 

quality data. 

(5) Issuance of a shark research permit 

does not guarantee the permit holder 

that a NMFS-approved observer will be 

deployed on any particular trip. Rather, 

permit issuance indicates that a vessel 

is eligible for a NMFS-approved 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
40712 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

observer to be deployed on the vessel 

for a particular trip and that, on such 

observed trips, the vessel may be 

allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, 

including sandbar sharks, in excess of 

the retention limits described in 

§ 635.24(a). 

(6) The shark research permit may be 

revoked, limited, or modified at any 

time, does not confer any right to engage 

in activities beyond those authorized by 

the permit, and does not confer any 

right of compensation to the holder. 

(g) Applications and renewals. (1) 

Application procedures shall be as 

indicated under § 600.745(b)(2) of this 

chapter, except that NMFS may 

consolidate requests for the purpose of 

obtaining public comment. In such 

cases, NMFS may file with the Office of 

the Federal Register, on an annual or 

more frequent basis as necessary, 

notification of previously authorized 

exempted fishing, scientific research, 

public display, chartering, and shark 

research activities and to solicit public 

comment on anticipated EFP, scientific 

research permit, letter of 

acknowledgment, public display, 

chartering, or shark research permit 

activities. Applications for EFPs, 

scientific research permits, public 

display permits, chartering permits, or 

shark research permits are required to 

include all reports specified in the 

applicant’s previous permit including, if 

applicable, the year-end report, all 

delinquent reports for permits issued in 

prior years, and all other specified 

information. In situations of delinquent 

reports, applications will be deemed 

incomplete and a permit will not be 

issued under this section. 

(2) For the shark research permit, 

NMFS will publish annually, in a 

Federal Register notice(s), a description 

for the following fishing year of the 

expected research objectives. This 

description may include information 

such as the number of vessels needed, 

regions and seasons for which vessels 

are needed, the specific criteria for 

selection, and the application deadline. 

Complete applications, including all 

information requested in the applicable 

Federal Register notice(s) and on the 

application form and any previous 

reports required pursuant to this section 

and § 635.5, must be received by NMFS 

by the application deadline in order for 

the vessel to be considered. Requested 

information could include, but is not 

limited to, applicant name and address, 

permit information, vessel information, 

availability of the vessel, past 

involvement in the shark fishery, and 

compliance with HMS regulations 

including observer regulations. NMFS 

will only review complete applications 

received by the published deadline to 

determine eligibility for participation in 

the shark research fishery. Qualified 

vessels will be chosen based on the 

information provided on the 

applications and their ability to meet 

the selection criteria as published in the 

Federal Register notice. A commercial 

shark permit holder whose vessel was 

selected to carry an observer in the 

previous two years for any HMS fishery 

but failed to comply with the observer 

regulations specified in § 635.7 will not 

be considered. A commercial shark 

permit holder that has been charged 

criminally or civilly (i.e., issued a 

Notice of Violation and Assessment 

(NOVA) or Notice of Permit Sanction) 

for any HMS related violation will not 

be considered for participation in the 

shark research fishery. Qualified vessels 

will be randomly selected to participate 

in the shark research fishery based on 

their availability and the temporal and 

spatial needs of the research objectives. 

If a vessel issued a shark research 

permit cannot conduct the shark 

research tasks, for whatever reason, that 

permit will be revoked and, depending 

on the status of the research and the 

fishing year, NMFS will randomly select 

another qualified vessel to be issued a 

shark research permit. 

(h) Terms and conditions. (1) For 

EFPs, scientific research permits, and 

public display permits: Written reports 

on fishing activities, and disposition of 

all fish captured under a permit issued 

under this section must be submitted to 

NMFS within 5 days of return to port. 

NMFS will provide specific conditions 

and requirements as needed, consistent 

with the Consolidated HMS Fishery 

Management Plan, in the permit. If an 

individual issued a Federal permit 

under this section captures no HMS in 

any given month, either in or outside 

the EEZ, a ‘‘no-catch’’ report must be 

submitted to NMFS within 5 days of the 

last day of that month. 

(2) For chartering permits, written 

reports of fishing activities must be 

submitted to NMFS by a date specified, 

and to an address designated, in the 

terms and conditions of each chartering 

permit. 

(3) An annual written summary report 

of all fishing activities, and disposition 

of all fish captured, under the permit 

must be submitted to NMFS for all 

EFPs, scientific research permits, 

display permits, and chartering permits 

issued under this section within 30 days 

after the expiration date of the permit. 

(4) For shark research permits, all 

owners and/or operators must comply 

with the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in § 635.5 per 

the requirement of holding a LAP for 

sharks. 

(5) As stated in § 635.4(a)(6), failure to 

comply with the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of this section 

could result in the EFP, scientific 

research permit, display permit, 

chartering permit, or shark research 

permit being revoked, suspended, or 

modified, and in the denial of any 

future applications. 

■ 16. In § 635.69, paragraph (a) 

introductory text is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.69 Vessel monitoring systems. 

(a) Applicability. To facilitate 

enforcement of time/area and fishery 

closures, an owner or operator of a 

commercial vessel, permitted to fish for 

Atlantic HMS under § 635.4 and that 

fishes with a pelagic or bottom longline 

or gillnet gear, is required to install a 

NMFS-approved vessel monitoring 

system (VMS) unit on board the vessel 

and operate the VMS unit under the 

following circumstances: 

* * * * * 

■ 17. In § 635.71, paragraphs (a)(2), 

(a)(4), (a)(6), (d)(3), (d)(4), (d)(6) through 

(8), and (d)(10) are revised and 

paragraphs (d)(15), (d)(16), and (d)(17) 

are added to read as follows: 

§ 635.71 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or 

land Atlantic HMS without the 

appropriate valid vessel permit, LAP, 

EFP, scientific research permit, display 

permit, chartering permit, or shark 

research permit on board the vessel, as 

specified in §§ 635.4 and 635.32. 

* * * * * 

(4) Sell or transfer or attempt to sell 

or transfer, for commercial purposes, an 

Atlantic tuna, shark, or swordfish other 

than to a dealer that has a valid dealer 

permit issued under § 635.4, except that 

this does not apply to a shark harvested 

by a vessel that has not been issued a 

permit under this part and that fishes 

exclusively within the waters under the 

jurisdiction of any state. 

* * * * * 

(6) Falsify or fail to record, report, or 

maintain information required to be 

recorded, reported, or maintained, as 

specified in §§ 635.5 and 635.32 or in 

the terms and conditions of a permit 

issued under § 635.4 or an EFP, 

scientific research permit, display 

permit, chartering permit, or shark 

research permit issued under § 635.32. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 40713 

(3) Retain, possess, or land a shark of 

a species group when the fishery for that 

species group and/or region is closed, as 

specified in § 635.28(b). 

(4) Sell or purchase a shark of a 

species group when the fishery for that 

species group and/or region is closed, as 

specified in § 635.28(b). 

* * * * * 

(6) Fail to maintain a shark in its 

proper form, as specified in § 635.30(c). 

Fail to maintain naturally attached 

shark fins through offloading as 

specified in § 635.30(c). 

(7) Sell or purchase shark fins that are 

disproportionate to the weight of shark 

carcasses, as specified in § 635.30(c) and 

§ 600.1204(e) and (l) of this chapter. 

(8) Fail to have shark fins and 

carcasses weighed and recorded, as 

specified in § 635.30(c). 

* * * * * 

(10) Retain, possess, sell, or purchase 

a prohibited shark, including parts or 

pieces of prohibited sharks, as specified 

under §§ 635.22(c), 635.24(a), and 

635.27(b), or fail to disengage any 

hooked or entangled prohibited shark 

with the least harm possible to the 

animal as specified at § 635.21(d). 

* * * * * 

(15) Sell or transfer or attempt to sell 

or transfer a shark or sharks or part of 

a shark or sharks in excess of the 

retention limits specified in § 635.24(a). 

(16) Purchase, receive, or transfer or 

attempt to purchase, receive, or transfer 

a shark or sharks or part of a shark or 

sharks landed in excess of the retention 

limits specified in § 635.24(a). 

(17) Replace sharks that are onboard 

the vessel for retention with sharks of 

higher quality or size that are caught 

later in a particular trip as specified in 

§ 635.24(a). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–13961 Filed 6–23–08; 8:45 am] 

Editorial Note: Federal Register rule 

document E8–13961, originally published at 

pages 35778 to 35833 in the issue of Tuesday, 

June 24, 2008, included several pages of 

duplicated text and deleted material. This 

document is being republished in its entirety. 

[FR Doc. R8–13961 Filed 7–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES2