Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39373 

(k)(7)(iv) of this section, during the 

previous year (April 1 to March 31) did 

not include the lethal take of any 

released wolf or wolves that were or 

would have counted toward the genetic 

objective set forth at paragraph (k)(9)(v) 

of this section. 

(2) After the USFWS has achieved the 

genetic objective set forth at paragraph 

(k)(9)(v) of this section, the conditional 

annual basis for issuing permits will no 

longer be in effect. 

* * * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(E) No requests for take in response to 

unacceptable impacts to a wild ungulate 

herd may be made by the State game 

and fish agency or accepted by the 

USFWS until the genetic objective at 

paragraph (k)(9)(v) of this section has 

been met. 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(iii) Based on end-of-year counts, we 

will manage to achieve and sustain a 

population average greater than or equal 

to 320 wolves in Arizona and New 

Mexico. This average must be achieved 

over an 8-year period, the population 

must exceed 320 Mexican wolves each 

of the last 3 years of the 8-year period, 

and the annual population growth rate 

averaged over the 8-year period must 

demonstrate a stable or increasing 

population, as calculated by a geometric 

mean. 

* * * * * 

(v) The USFWS and designated 

agencies will conduct a sufficient 

number of releases into the MWEPA 

from captivity to result in at least 22 

released Mexican wolves surviving to 

breeding age. 

(10) Evaluation. The USFWS will 

continue to evaluate Mexican wolf 

reestablishment progress and prepare 

periodic progress reports and detailed 

annual reports. In addition, 

approximately 5 years after August 1, 

2022, the USFWS will prepare a onetime overall evaluation of the 

experimental population program that 

focuses on modifications needed to 

improve the efficacy of this rule and the 

progress the experimental population is 

making to the recovery of the Mexican 

wolf. 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14025 Filed 6–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 220627–0143] 

RIN 0648–BL17 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Shortfin Mako Shark Retention Limit 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NMFS is 

implementing a flexible shortfin mako 

shark retention limit with a default limit 

of zero in commercial and recreational 

Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) 

fisheries. The default limit of zero will 

remain in place unless and until 

changed. Under this final rule, future 

changes to the retention limit can only 

be made based on consideration of 

regulatory criteria and only if consistent 

with an allowable retention 

determination made by the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) pursuant to 

Recommendation 21–09. This action is 

necessary to implement the binding 

recommendations of ICCAT adopted in 

2021, as authorized under the Atlantic 

Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to 

achieve domestic management 

objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 5, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this 

final rule and supporting documents are 

available from the Atlantic HMS 

Management Division website at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantichighly-migratory-species or by 

contacting Carrie Soltanoff at 

carrie.soltanoff@noaa.gov or 301–427– 

8503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Soltanoff (carrie.soltanoff@

noaa.gov), Guy DuBeck (guy.dubeck@

noaa.gov), Erianna Hammond 

(erianna.hammond@noaa.gov), or Ann 

Williamson (ann.williamson@noaa.gov) 

at 301–427–8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

shark fisheries are managed primarily 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and 

ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). The 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery 

Management Plan (2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP) and its amendments are 

implemented by regulations at 50 CFR 

part 635. ATCA authorizes the Secretary 

of Commerce to promulgate such 

regulations as necessary and appropriate 

to carry out ICCAT recommendations. 

The authority to issue regulations under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA 

has been delegated from the Secretary of 

Commerce to the NMFS Assistant 

Administrator. 

Background information about the 

need to implement a retention limit for 

shortfin mako sharks was provided in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (87 

FR 21077, April 11, 2022) and is not 

repeated here. The comment period for 

the proposed rule closed on May 11, 

2022. NMFS received 22 written 

comments as well as oral comments 

during the public hearing held by 

webinar on April 27, 2022. The 

comments received, and the responses 

to those comments, are summarized in 

the Response to Comments section. 

After considering public comments on 

the proposed rule, NMFS is finalizing 

the rule as proposed. As described, no 

changes are made from the proposed 

rule. 

NMFS has prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which 

analyze the anticipated environmental, 

social, and economic impacts of several 

alternatives for each of the major issues 

contained in this final rule. The full list 

of alternatives and their analyses are 

provided in the final EA/RIR/FRFA and 

are not repeated here. A summary of the 

FRFA is provided below. A copy of the 

final EA/RIR/FRFA prepared for this 

final rule is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

As described in the proposed rule, 

Recommendation 21–09, adopted at the 

November 2021 ICCAT annual meeting, 

prohibits retention of North Atlantic 

shortfin mako sharks caught in 

association with ICCAT fisheries in 

2022 and 2023. Limited retention of 

shortfin mako sharks may be allowed in 

2023 and future years if ICCAT 

determines that fishing mortality is at a 

low enough level North Atlantic-wide to 

allow retention consistent with the 

conservation objectives of the 

recommendation. 

In order to meet domestic 

management objectives, implement 

Recommendation 21–09, and 

acknowledge the possibility of future 

retention, this final rule implements a 

flexible shortfin mako shark retention 

limit with a default limit of zero in 

commercial and recreational HMS 

fisheries. The retention limit applies to 

commercial vessels issued a Shark 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
39374 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Directed or Shark Incidental LAP using 

pelagic longline, bottom longline, or 

gillnet gear, and to recreational HMS 

permit holders (those who hold HMS 

Angling or Charter/Headboat permits). It 

also applies to Atlantic Tunas General 

category and Swordfish General 

Commercial permits when participating 

in a registered HMS tournament. 

Retention already is not allowed for 

other permits and gear types (see 

§§ 635.21(a)(4) and 635.24(a)(4)(i) and 

(iii)). Thus, retention in all commercial 

and recreational fisheries is prohibited 

for 2022 consistent with the ICCAT 

recommendation, and all commercial 

and recreational fishermen are required 

to release all shortfin mako sharks, 

whether dead or alive, at haulback. 

The shortfin mako shark retention 

limit per trip of zero will remain in 

place unless changed after consideration 

of the inseason trip limit adjustment 

criteria (§ 635.24(a)(8)) and consistent 

with any ICCAT retention allowances 

pursuant to Recommendation 21–09. If 

the retention limit is increased, it would 

apply only to commercial vessels issued 

a Shark Directed or Shark Incidental 

LAP using pelagic longline, bottom 

longline, or gillnet gear, and/or to 

recreational HMS permit holders (those 

who hold HMS Angling or Charter/ 

Headboat permits) and Atlantic Tunas 

General category and Swordfish General 

Commercial permits when participating 

in a registered HMS tournament). It 

would not apply to other fisheries and 

gear types where retention is otherwise 

prohibited. If a retention limit greater 

than zero is implemented for the 

commercial fishery, the commercial 

shortfin mako shark fishing restrictions 

in effect prior to this final rule would 

once again also apply. Similarly, if a 

retention limit greater than zero is 

implemented for the recreational 

fishery, the recreational shortfin mako 

shark fishing restrictions in effect prior 

to this final rule would again also apply. 

Additionally, under this final rule, 

research and sampling of shortfin mako 

sharks continues to be allowable under 

exempted fishing permits (EFPs) and 

scientific research permits (SRPs) (see 

§§ 635.27(b)(4) and 635.32). Collection 

of shortfin mako sharks under display 

permits is not allowed. Applications for 

EFPs and/or SRPs will be considered on 

a case-by-case basis. Collection of 

shortfin mako sharks under EFPs and/or 

SRPs could include sampling or limited 

retention where needed for scientific 

research. Only non-lethal sampling 

would be permitted on shortfin mako 

sharks that are alive at haulback. NMFS 

intends to limit any such EFPs and/or 

SRPs to closely monitored studies and 

to limit the number of such permits and 

the number of sharks that may be 

sampled and/or retained. When 

retention is otherwise prohibited, any 

retention pursuant to an EFP and/or 

SRP will be accounted for under the 

applicable shark research and display 

quota. If retention is otherwise 

permitted, consistent with ICCAT 

recommendations, NMFS will count any 

retention under EFPs and/or SRPs 

against the applicable ICCAT retention 

allowance. 

NMFS is also making a minor 

modification to the pelagic longline gear 

restrictions at § 635.21(c)(1)(iv) to 

further clarify the shortfin mako shark 

live release requirements. 

Response to Comments 

Written comments can be found at 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2022–0015.’’ Below, 

NMFS summarizes and responds to the 

comments made on the proposed rule 

during the comment period. 

Comment 1: NMFS received several 

comments in support of the proposed 

measures (preferred Alternative 2 in the 

EA for this action). Commenters stated 

that they supported these measures due 

to the ICCAT stock assessment showing 

that the North Atlantic shortfin mako 

shark stock is overfished and subject to 

overfishing; the role of shortfin mako 

sharks as apex predators in the marine 

ecosystem; the life history traits of this 

species including slow growth and late 

reproductive maturity; the high risk of 

this species to overfishing; and listing of 

this species as endangered on the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened 

Species. Some commenters supported 

the zero retention limit in order to allow 

sustainable commercial and recreational 

fishing for shortfin mako sharks in the 

future. 

Response: NMFS agrees that these 

measures, along with other conservation 

and management measures that are in 

place, are appropriate given the stock 

assessment conclusion that the North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock is 

overfished and subject to overfishing. 

These measures are based on the best 

scientific information available, which 

recognizes the species’ life history traits, 

including late reproductive maturity. 

NMFS shares the commenters’ view that 

putting a retention limit of zero in place 

now should contribute to allowing the 

population to support future sustainable 

fisheries. 

Regarding the IUCN Red List status of 

shortfin mako sharks, NMFS scientists 

participate in the species assessment for 

the Red List, but NMFS does not base 

management actions on IUCN 

designations. The IUCN uses different 

criteria than applicable under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) for 

determining whether a species is 

threatened or endangered or for 

determining whether stocks are 

overfished or overfishing is occurring 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Comment 2: Several comments 

supported a retention limit of zero for 

shortfin mako sharks but stated that the 

retention limit should be extended 

domestically beyond 2023, even if some 

level of retention is allowed beginning 

in 2023 under Recommendation 21–09, 

and stay in place until the population is 

rebuilt, as determined by a stock 

assessment. Some commenters urged 

NMFS to take a precautionary approach 

to shortfin mako shark management. 

Some commenters stated that allowing 

retention before the population is 

rebuilt would be inconsistent with the 

best scientific information available, as 

required under National Standard 2 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

HMS regulations should specify that the 

retention limit of zero for shortfin mako 

sharks should remain in place until the 

population is determined to be rebuilt. 

The purpose of this action is to 

implement ICCAT Recommendation 21– 

09, which includes the possibility of 

limited future retention of shortfin mako 

sharks as determined by ICCAT 

consistent with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 21–09 specifies that 

retention may only occur when the 

overall level of fishing mortality 

prevents overfishing with a high 

probability (i.e., under 250 mt for all 

ICCAT parties combined). 

Recommendation 21–09 also provides 

that a rebuilding program for North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark is being 

undertaken starting in 2022 to end 

overfishing immediately and gradually 

achieve biomass levels sufficient to 

support maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) by 2070 with a probability of a 

range of between 60 and 70 percent at 

least. The initial aim of the 

recommendation is to reduce total 

fishing mortality, to maintain mortality 

at sustainable levels to rebuild the stock, 

and to establish a process to determine 

whether in any given year there is a 

possibility for retention. ICCAT 

determinations regarding longer-term 

retention or measures that are 

appropriately part of a rebuilding plan 

have not yet been made. As described in 

Chapter 4.1 of the EA, possible future 

increase of the shortfin mako shark 

retention limit above zero, consistent 

with the limits specified in 

Recommendation 21–09 and the 

domestic inseason adjustment criteria, 

would not be expected to have an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39375 

adverse impact on the stock. 

Additionally, the U.S. portion of total 

ICCAT shortfin mako shark catch has 

historically been low (approximately 14 

percent, on average, at the time of the 

2017 stock assessment). Under a 

retention limit greater than zero, U.S. 

retention would continue to be limited 

by the commercial and recreational 

restrictions under the current 

regulations. Further, Recommendation 

21–09 limits possible future retention of 

shortfin mako sharks to those that are 

dead at haulback. 

Regarding National Standard 2 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, as described in 

Chapter 8 of the EA, National Standard 

2 requires that conservation and 

management measures be based on the 

best scientific information available. 

NMFS determined that the preferred 

Alternative 2, implemented in this 

action, is consistent with National 

Standard 2. These measures are based 

on the latest ICCAT Standing Committee 

on Research and Statistics (SCRS) stock 

assessment for shortfin mako sharks, 

and specific SCRS advice regarding 

recommended management approaches 

(i.e., no retention) pending reduction of 

catch below 250 mt. Any shortfin mako 

shark retention allowed by ICCAT 

would take into consideration the best 

scientific information available 

regarding landings and dead discards 

across all ICCAT parties. Results from 

the stock assessment and the other data 

sources represent the best available 

science. 

Comment 3: One commenter stated 

that the current commercial fishery 

restrictions would apply if the flexible 

shortfin mako shark retention limit were 

increased above zero, and that the 

current restrictions are inadequate to 

rebuild the population. 

Response: Regarding the commercial 

fishery regulations in effect prior to this 

final rule, in the FEIS for Amendment 

11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

(Amendment 11), NMFS concluded that 

the commercial measures would have 

short- and long-term minor beneficial 

ecological impacts to the North Atlantic 

shortfin mako shark stock. The 

Amendment 11 measures were 

implemented to reduce U.S. shortfin 

mako shark catch to levels consistent 

with ending overfishing and beginning 

to rebuild the stock. U.S. shortfin mako 

shark catch is a small percentage of total 

North Atlantic-wide catch and so 

domestic reductions in shortfin mako 

shark mortality alone cannot end 

overfishing of, or rebuild, the entire 

North Atlantic stock. 

Comment 4: NMFS received several 

comments in support of a non-preferred 

alternative (Alternative 3) to prohibit 

retention of shortfin mako sharks 

through placing the species on the 

Atlantic HMS prohibited sharks list. 

Commenters stated that this alternative 

would be in line with the SCRS advice 

and Recommendation 21–09. 

Commenters also stated that NMFS’ 

analyses show that this measure would 

not have substantial economic impacts 

on commercial or for-hire fisheries or 

HMS tournaments. One commenter 

stated that shortfin mako sharks also 

meet one of the criteria for putting 

sharks on the prohibited species list, 

§ 635.34(c)(4), because the species is 

difficult to distinguish from other 

prohibited species, since it is easily 

confused with longfin mako sharks. 

Response: NMFS is not implementing 

Alternative 3 (prohibit retention of 

shortfin mako sharks) at this time 

because that measure would be beyond 

the scope of this action to implement 

ICCAT Recommendation 21–09. Under 

§ 635.34(c), NMFS considers four 

criteria when placing a species on the 

Atlantic HMS prohibited species list. 

These criteria are: (1) Biological 

information indicating that the stock 

warrants protection; (2) Information 

indicating that the species is rarely 

encountered or observed caught in HMS 

fisheries; (3) Information indicating that 

the species is not commonly 

encountered or observed caught as 

bycatch in fishing operations for species 

other than HMS; and (4) Whether the 

species is difficult to distinguish from 

other prohibited species. 

Although shortfin mako sharks meet 

criteria 1 and 3 of the four prohibited 

species criteria, NMFS is not adding 

shortfin mako sharks to the prohibited 

species list for several reasons. First, if 

ICCAT should make changes to the 

retention allowance in the future under 

Recommendation 21–09, the preferred 

alternative gives NMFS flexibility to 

make changes to the retention limit 

quickly to allow U.S. fishermen the 

opportunity to potentially land shortfin 

mako sharks, or to again prohibit 

retention quickly by setting the limit at 

zero when needed. Additionally, the 

shortfin mako shark mortality associated 

with current U.S. landings is minimal 

when compared to the total North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark mortality. 

Therefore, NMFS is not implementing 

this alternative at this time. 

Regarding criterion four, shortfin 

mako sharks are not easily confused 

with other shark species. The species 

that look the most like shortfin mako 

sharks are porbeagle and white sharks. 

However, there are several clear 

differences in their dorsal fin coloration, 

second dorsal fin position, and teeth. 

Porbeagle sharks have a unique white 

patch on the trailing edge of the first 

dorsal fin, which makes the mark a great 

identification characteristic that can 

easily be seen while the shark is alive 

and in the water. The position of the 

second dorsal fin is in line with the anal 

fin in porbeagle and shortfin mako 

sharks, while the second dorsal fin is 

positioned between the pelvic and anal 

fin in white sharks. If the shark is 

brought to the vessel dead, fishermen 

could also examine the teeth before 

deciding whether the species can be 

retained. Specifically, porbeagle sharks 

have smooth, bladelike teeth with 

cusplets, while shortfin mako sharks 

have smooth, bladelike teeth without 

cusplets, and white sharks have large, 

triangular, serrated teeth. One of the 

commenters suggested that shortfin 

mako sharks could be mistaken for 

longfin mako sharks. NMFS has not 

found that to be true. Longfin mako 

sharks have been on the prohibited 

species list since 2000. During that time, 

few fishermen have mistaken the 

species for shortfin mako sharks. 

Compared to shortfin mako sharks, 

longfin mako sharks have much longer 

pectoral fins, have a different body 

shape, and are dark on the underside of 

the snout. 

Comment 5: One comment supported 

the proposed flexible retention limit for 

shortfin mako sharks as a short-term 

solution with the goal of ultimately 

adding the shortfin mako shark to the 

prohibited sharks list in the long-term. 

Response: For the reasons described 

in the responses to Comments 1 and 4 

and Chapter 4 of the EA, NMFS is 

implementing the measures under 

preferred Alternative 2 to implement a 

flexible shortfin mako shark retention 

limit with a default limit of zero, and is 

not adding the species to the HMS 

prohibited sharks list under Alternative 

3. This does not preclude NMFS from 

adding shortfin mako sharks to the 

prohibited sharks list in the future if 

new information or international or 

domestic action necessitate that 

measure, for example, under a future 

ICCAT recommendation or following 

domestic determinations under the ESA. 

Comment 6: NMFS received several 

comments supporting a ban on shortfin 

mako shark retention, rather than a 

flexible retention limit with a default 

limit of zero. Commenters supported 

banning retention due to the ICCAT 

stock assessment showing that the North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock is 

overfished and subject to overfishing; 

the scientific advice and projections 

from the SCRS, including that the 

population will continue to decline for 

several years before it begins to recover, 

even with no retention; the need to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
39376 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

incentivize avoidance of this species by 

fishing vessels; the high susceptibility of 

the species as identified in the SCRS 

Ecological Risk Assessment for sharks; 

the role of shortfin mako sharks as apex 

predators in the marine ecosystem; the 

life history traits of this species 

including slow growth and late 

reproductive maturity; listing of this 

species as endangered on the IUCN Red 

List; the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) status of this 

species; and the need to save this 

species from extinction. Some 

commenters specifically opposed 

flexibility in the retention limit. One 

commenter supported maintaining a full 

retention ban until at least 2035 or 

whenever a new stock assessment 

demonstrates rebuilding will be 

successful. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

Agency should implement a retention 

ban for shortfin mako sharks, which 

NMFS understands to mean 

implementing a retention limit of zero 

with no flexibility to increase the 

retention limit in the future. NMFS 

believes that implementation of the 

preferred alternative, including a 

flexible retention limit, best meets the 

purpose and need for this action: to 

implement ICCAT Recommendation 21– 

09. If retention is later allowed by 

ICCAT pursuant to the provisions in the 

recommendation, section 304(g)(1)(D) of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 

Agency to provide fishing vessels with 

a reasonable opportunity to harvest U.S. 

allocation or quota under an 

international fishery agreement. Under 

these measures, NMFS could change the 

shortfin mako shark retention limit 

based on the inseason trip limit 

adjustment criteria where consistent 

with any future retention allowance that 

is determined by ICCAT consistent with 

Recommendation 21–09. ICCAT 

adopted Recommendation 21–09 in 

order to address the stock status of 

North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks 

(overfished and experiencing 

overfishing) and recognizing the results 

of the SCRS ecological risk assessment 

for sharks and the SCRS advice that, 

regardless of allowable catch levels, the 

shortfin mako shark spawning stock 

biomass will continue to decline until 

2035 before any increase can occur, 

owing to the time it takes juveniles to 

reach maturity. As described in Chapter 

4 of the EA, these measures may have 

the effect of disincentivizing shortfin 

mako shark catch, although only to the 

extent commercial fishermen could 

further explore and find ways to avoid 

shortfin mako sharks through gear 

modification or changing fishing 

locations. 

Regarding CITES status, the CITES 

status of shortfin mako sharks has been 

addressed in the United States through 

appropriate permitting requirements, 

and is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. CITES classifies species 

based on the level of trade monitoring 

needed to ensure the population 

recovers or remains healthy. Through 

CITES, the United States has agreed to 

increase protections and international 

trade monitoring for a number of shark 

species, including shortfin mako sharks. 

Shortfin mako sharks are included in 

CITES Appendix II, under which 

commercial international trade is 

allowed, and in the United States permit 

requirements specific to CITES are 

managed primarily by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. IUCN Red List status 

of shortfin mako sharks is discussed in 

the response to Comment 1. 

Comment 7: NMFS received a 

comment that retention of shortfin mako 

sharks for scientific research should be 

banned as well, because that activity 

risks fatal injuries to the sharks. 

Response: Determinations regarding 

individual EFPs or SRPs for shortfin 

mako research would be made on a 

case-by-case basis; NMFS is not 

authorizing any particular research, 

retention, or sampling with this final 

rule. NMFS disagrees that scientific 

research sampling of shortfin mako 

sharks should be banned under HMS 

EFPs and SRPs. As described in Chapter 

2 of the EA, considering the fact that the 

shortfin mako shark retention limit will 

otherwise be set at zero, NMFS intends 

to limit any EFPs and SRPs to closely 

monitored studies, and to limit the 

number of such permits and the number 

of sharks that may be retained, if any. 

Research on shortfin mako sharks is 

critical to gathering scientific 

information about the stock and to 

helping ensure that stock assessments 

have sufficient data. Permitted 

collection of shortfin mako sharks for 

scientific research is consistent with the 

biological sampling and research needs 

described in Recommendation 21–09 

and other relevant ICCAT 

recommendations, as well as research 

needs identified by the SCRS, including 

to provide data for future shortfin mako 

shark stock assessments. For example, 

Recommendations 21–09 and 13–10 

(Recommendation on Biological 

Sampling of Prohibited Shark Species 

by Scientific Observers) provide for 

collection of biological samples of 

shortfin mako and other sharks that are 

dead at haulback during commercial 

fishing operations by scientific 

observers or individuals duly permitted 

by the ICCAT party. 

Comment 8: Some comments 

supported including all relevant 

commercial and recreational fisheries in 

the scope of this rulemaking, including 

fisheries, such as bottom longline and 

gillnet shark fisheries, which are not 

considered ICCAT fisheries. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

commenters on including gears that are 

not associated with ICCAT fisheries, 

such as bottom longline and gillnet 

shark fisheries, in this action. This 

approach is consistent with the 

approach taken in Amendment 11, 

where NMFS determined it was 

appropriate to implement parallel 

management measures in the nonICCAT shark fisheries given that the 

stock remained overfished with 

overfishing occurring. This approach 

ensures consistency in HMS regulations 

across gear types, which will provide 

clarity for both the regulated community 

and for enforcement purposes and thus 

ensure more effective implementation. 

The purpose of this action is to 

implement ICCAT Recommendation 21– 

09, which prohibits the retention of 

North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks 

caught in association with ICCAT 

fisheries in 2022 and 2023, among other 

measures. In this action, after 

considering the measures implemented 

under Amendment 11 that considered 

the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act, the status of shortfin mako 

sharks, and the need for consistency, 

NMFS is applying a flexible retention 

limit with a default of zero to nonICCAT fishery gear types (bottom 

longline and gillnet). 

Comment 9: NMFS received a 

comment that the alternative to prohibit 

retention of shortfin mako sharks is the 

most consistent with National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements, since public comment 

would be taken on any future action to 

allow retention. The commenter stated 

that the flexible retention limit under 

the preferred alternative, on the other 

hand, would not require public 

comment to increase the retention limit, 

which would be inconsistent with 

NEPA requirements. The commenter 

further stated that the preferred 

alternative did not analyze an upper 

retention limit and therefore the 

analyses in the EA are inadequate. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that 

increasing the shortfin mako shark 

retention limit in the future would be 

inconsistent with NEPA requirements. 

Inseason trip limit adjustment criteria 

are described in the current HMS 

regulations (see § 635.24(a)(8)), as 

augmented in this action, and those 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39377 

regulatory criteria would be used for 

any future adjustment of the shortfin 

mako shark retention limit, as they are 

currently for adjustment of other shark 

retention limits (for example, 

§ 635.24(a)(2)). In addition, any future 

change to the shortfin mako shark 

retention limit would be implemented 

only to the extent future retention is 

allowable as determined by ICCAT 

consistent with Recommendation 21– 

09. Although an upper per trip retention 

limit for shortfin mako sharks is not 

analyzed in this action, the EA 

effectively analyzes the possible effects 

of any retention limit increases that fall 

within (and would effectuate) a future 

U.S. retention allowance under the 

current Recommendation. A future U.S. 

retention allowance would occur within 

the Recommendation’s overall limit on 

total fishing mortality and the United 

States’ portion of that allowance and 

would not have additional impacts 

outside those analyzed. Furthermore, 

any retention allowance for the United 

States would likely be small since it 

must be under 250 mt for all ICCAT 

parties combined, and the U.S. portion 

of total ICCAT shortfin mako shark 

catch has historically been low. When 

NMFS establishes a per-trip retention 

limit, it will constrain U.S. catch within 

that U.S. retention allowance. 

Additionally, under a retention limit 

greater than zero, U.S. shortfin mako 

shark retention would continue to be 

limited by the commercial and 

recreational restrictions in the current 

regulations, along with additional 

restrictions on retention of sharks that 

are alive at haulback. Recommendation 

21–09 only allows for possible future 

retention of shortfin mako sharks that 

are dead at haulback, which further 

restricts possibilities for U.S. retention 

under a possible future retention 

allowance. These measures for shortfin 

mako sharks are analyzed in the EA for 

this action under preferred Alternative 

2, considering public comments 

received on the proposed rule and draft 

EA and IRFA, consistent with NEPA 

requirements. 

Comment 10: NMFS received 

comments, including from the State of 

Georgia, opposing implementation of a 

default retention limit of zero for 

shortfin mako sharks in directed shark 

fisheries or in recreational fisheries. 

Commenters stated that the United 

States has already effectively reduced 

shortfin mako shark catch in proportion 

to the U.S. contribution to stock-wide 

catches. The State of Georgia also 

commented that the Agency should not 

implement measures beyond those 

under Amendment 11 in directed shark 

fisheries, and that the HMS regulations 

implementing ICCAT recommendations 

on oceanic whitetip sharks and 

hammerhead sharks were not 

implemented in non-ICCAT, directed 

shark fisheries for consistency. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

measures implemented under 

Amendment 11 were effective at 

meeting the management objectives of 

that action, and reduced catch levels of 

shortfin mako sharks in U.S. fisheries to 

a level consistent with ending 

overfishing of the stock. However, as 

described under the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative 1) in Chapter 4 

of the EA, the current measures are not 

sufficient to meet the purpose and need 

for the present action. The purpose of 

this action is to implement ICCAT 

Recommendation 21–09, which 

prohibits the retention of North Atlantic 

shortfin mako sharks. The action is 

needed because the current HMS 

regulations, which allow limited 

retention of shortfin mako sharks in 

commercial and recreational fisheries, 

are inconsistent with the requirements 

of Recommendation 21–09. 

NMFS disagrees that shortfin mako 

shark retention limit should not apply 

in directed shark fisheries. As described 

in Chapter 2 of the EA, the flexible 

retention limit would apply in the HMS 

bottom longline and gillnet fisheries for 

sharks, although those fisheries are not 

considered to be ICCAT fisheries, which 

are defined as fisheries for tuna or tunalike species under the current ICCAT 

Convention. This approach is consistent 

with the approach taken in Amendment 

11, where NMFS determined it was 

appropriate to implement parallel 

management measures in the nonICCAT shark fisheries given that the 

stock remained overfished with 

overfishing occurring. This approach 

would ensure consistency in HMS 

regulations, which would provide 

clarity for both the regulated community 

and for enforcement purposes and thus 

ensure more effective implementation. 

NMFS did not, however, implement the 

ICCAT requirement that electronic 

monitoring be onboard in these 

fisheries, because bottom longline and 

gillnet fisheries have minimal 

interactions with this species, and 

electronic monitoring was unnecessary 

to track such interactions effectively. 

After considering the measures 

implemented under Amendment 11 that 

considered the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the status of 

shortfin mako sharks, and the need for 

consistency, NFMS would apply a 

flexible retention limit with a default of 

zero to these gears. 

Comment 11: Several commenters 

suggested measures that could be 

implemented instead of a retention limit 

of zero in the recreational fishery. 

Suggestions included a recreational 

limit of one shortfin mako shark per 

vessel per year; a limit of two sharks per 

year: one trophy size and one for 

personal consumption; banning the 

retention of females; banning retention 

in tournaments; mandatory reporting; 

increasing the minimum sizes; and 

managing shortfin mako sharks like deer 

(i.e., through administration of a system 

that provides fishermen with a tag or 

limited number of tags). NMFS received 

a suggestion to implement a fee for each 

shortfin mako shark caught, and a 

higher fee if the shark is brought to the 

vessel dead. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

comments suggesting ways to allow 

retention of shortfin mako sharks while 

reducing the overall number of sharks 

harvested. However, allowing retention 

of shortfin mako sharks would not be 

consistent with the purpose of this 

action to implement ICCAT 

Recommendation 21–09, which 

prohibits the retention of North Atlantic 

shortfin mako sharks in 2022 and 2023. 

NMFS is implementing a flexible 

shortfin mako shark retention limit with 

a default limit of zero for HMS permit 

holders. The limit of zero remains in 

place until NMFS changes it following 

consideration of regulatory criteria for 

inseason adjustment of shark trip limits 

and consistent with any ICCAT 

retention allowances pursuant to 

Recommendation 21–09. If a retention 

limit greater than zero is implemented 

for the recreational fishery, the current 

recreational shortfin mako shark 

restrictions would again also apply, 

including minimum size limits of 71 

inches fork length (FL) (180 cm FL) for 

male and 83 inches FL (210 cm FL) for 

female shortfin mako sharks. Also of 

note, Recommendation 21–09 limits 

possible future retention of shortfin 

mako sharks to those that are dead at 

haulback. NMFS may consider 

additional management measures if 

ICCAT restrictions allow more retention 

of shortfin mako sharks in the future. 

For example, mandatory recreational 

catch reporting for pelagic sharks, 

including shortfin mako, may be 

considered in an upcoming rulemaking 

focused on reporting. 

Comment 12: The State of Georgia 

commented that retention of oceanic 

whitetip and scalloped hammerhead 

sharks should be prohibited in Atlantic 

HMS fisheries due to their ESA 

threatened status. 

Response: This comment is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. NMFS 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
39378 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

notes, however, that in 2020, NMFS 

released two Biological Opinions for 

HMS Fisheries under section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA. These Biological Opinions 

strongly encouraged the inclusion of 

oceanic whitetip and scalloped 

hammerhead sharks as prohibited shark 

species for recreational and/or 

commercial Atlantic HMS fisheries. As 

a result, NMFS is currently considering 

undertaking rulemaking that considers 

prohibiting the commercial and 

recreational retention of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks in the Central and 

Southwest distinct population segment 

and of oceanic whitetip sharks 

throughout their range, consistent with 

the 2020 Biological Opinions. That 

proposed rule is expected later in 2022. 

This information is also included in 

Chapter 4.8 of the EA. 

Comment 13: Some comments 

opposed allowing targeted catch-andrelease recreational fishing for shortfin 

mako sharks. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that 

targeted catch-and-release recreational 

fishing for shortfin mako sharks should 

not be permitted when the default 

retention limit of zero is in place. The 

purpose of this action is to implement 

ICCAT Recommendation 21–09, which 

prohibits retention of shortfin mako 

sharks. Catch-and-release fishing is 

consistent with the measures in 

Recommendation 21–09 and with 

implementation of a flexible retention 

limit with a default of zero. The 

retention limit of zero would prevent 

recreational fishermen from retaining 

shortfin mako sharks, which would 

reduce mortality. Allowing catch-andrelease fishing is consistent with nonretention requirements. As described in 

Chapter 4 of the EA, studies have shown 

that post-release mortality among 

recreationally caught shortfin mako 

sharks is relatively low. Overall, the 

recreational measures, including a 

default retention limit of zero while 

allowing catch-and-release fishing, are 

anticipated to have a minor, beneficial 

effect on the stock. Additionally, by 

allowing fishermen to catch-and-release 

shortfin mako sharks, data required for 

stock assessments would continue to be 

collected. Specifically, NMFS could 

continue to collect recreational survey 

data for shortfin mako sharks, including 

data on effort and catch rates. Regarding 

socioeconomic impacts on the 

recreational fishery, as described in 

Chapter 4 of the EA, prohibiting catchand-release fishing for shortfin mako 

sharks would double the estimated loss 

to supporting businesses and industries 

in recreational trip expenditures, 

increasing adverse impacts compared to 

the preferred alternative (reduction of 

$2.4 million in trip expenditures, 

compared to reduction of $1.1 million 

under the preferred alternative). 

Comment 14: NMFS received a 

comment that the proposed rule only 

considered commercial fisheries and 

tournaments. The commenter requested 

that the recreational sector outside of 

tournaments be included if retention is 

allowed. 

Response: This final rule implements 

a flexible shortfin mako shark retention 

limit with a default limit of zero in 

commercial and recreational HMS 

fisheries. To the extent that any future 

retention is allowed, consistent with the 

inseason trip limit adjustment criteria 

and Recommendation 21–09, any 

increase of the shortfin mako shark 

retention limit from the default, or 

subsequent decrease, could apply to the 

commercial fishery, the recreational 

fishery, or both. If the retention limit is 

increased above zero in the recreational 

fishery, that change could apply to both 

tournament and non-tournament 

fishing. Individual anglers, in additional 

to tournaments, are included in this 

action overall and in the analyses in the 

EA. 

Comment 15: One commenter 

requested data on where overharvest of 

shortfin mako sharks is occurring and 

the harvest data for each country 

involved. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

countries other than the United States 

are responsible for the majority of North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark fishing 

mortality, hence the need for 

international coordination through 

ICCAT on measures to end overfishing 

and rebuild the stock. Reported harvest 

levels by country are provided in the 

Task I catch data tables in the annual 

SCRS reports (2021 report available at 

https://www.iccat.int/Documents/ 

Meetings/Docs/2021/REPORTS/2021_

SCRS_ENG.pdf, shortfin mako shark 

data table on pages 260–261) and the 

ICCAT statistical database website 

(https://www.iccat.int/en/ 

accesingdb.html). 

Comment 16: NMFS received 

comments that the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires the Agency to develop a 

rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks 

since the stock was determined to be in 

an overfished condition. 

Response: NMFS has an obligation to 

implement binding ICCAT 

recommendations under ATCA, 

consistent with our obligations under 

the ICCAT treaty. The MagnusonStevens Act requires NMFS to take 

measures to end overfishing and to 

rebuild the stocks. North Atlantic 

shortfin mako shark distribution spans a 

large portion of the North Atlantic 

Ocean basin and many countries besides 

the United States interact with the 

species. Addressing overfishing and an 

overfished status can only effectively be 

accomplished through international 

efforts where other countries that have 

large landings of shortfin mako sharks 

actively and equitably participate in 

mortality reduction and rebuilding plan 

discussions. Because of the small U.S. 

contribution to North Atlantic shortfin 

mako shark mortality, domestic 

reductions of shortfin mako shark 

mortality alone would not end 

overfishing of the entire North Atlantic 

stock. Under Amendment 11, NMFS 

established the foundation for 

developing an international rebuilding 

plan for shortfin mako sharks, by 

adopting measures to end overfishing 

and taking action at the international 

level through ICCAT to develop a 

rebuilding plan. As part of that measure, 

Amendment 11 stated that any 

international management 

recommendations adopted by ICCAT to 

address shortfin mako shark rebuilding 

and to reduce mortality would be 

implemented domestically consistent 

with ATCA, including measures 

implemented under that amendment. 

This action implements ICCAT 

Recommendation 21–09 in an effective 

way, addressing overfishing and starting 

to rebuild the stock. The measures in 

Recommendation 21–09 were adopted 

as part of a rebuilding program for North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark starting in 

2022, with the objectives to ‘‘end 

overfishing immediately and gradually 

achieve biomass levels sufficient to 

support maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) by 2070 with a probability of a 

range of between 60 and 70 percent at 

least.’’ 

Comment 17: One commenter stated 

that NMFS should specify and 

implement additional catch monitoring 

and reporting measures to collect 

accurate and precise shortfin mako 

shark catch and bycatch information. 

Suggested measures include improving 

recreational data, enhancing commercial 

monitoring, and creating a public 

reporting portal for the recreational and 

commercial fisheries. 

Response: NMFS agrees that catch 

monitoring and reporting are critical 

components of managing shortfin mako 

sharks, both at ICCAT and domestically, 

and that improvements to recreational 

data reporting are necessary at the 

international level. Toward this end, the 

United States advocated for strong 

reporting requirements to be included in 

Recommendation 21–09, including that 

ICCAT parties present their statistical 

methodology used to estimate dead 

discards and live releases to the SCRS 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39379 

and that the SCRS review and approve 

or provide feedback on those methods, 

and that parties that do not 

appropriately report their shortfin mako 

shark landings and discards would not 

be able to retain this species when 

retention is otherwise allowable. These 

provisions were included in the 

recommendation (see paragraphs 13 and 

14). 

NMFS is not adopting additional 

catch monitoring and reporting 

requirements in this action. The 

purpose of this action is to implement 

ICCAT Recommendation 21–09. U.S. 

shortfin mako shark catch monitoring 

and reporting meet the requirements of 

Recommendation 21–09 and other 

relevant ICCAT recommendations, as 

well as domestic requirements. 

Therefore, NMFS does not agree that 

additional measures should be 

implemented under this action. 

Enhanced reporting may be considered 

in future rulemakings, for example, 

mandatory reporting of recreational 

catch of all pelagic sharks. 

Comment 18: NMFS received a 

comment that the Agency should 

require full-chain traceability for all 

catches of shortfin mako sharks through 

the Seafood Import Monitoring Program 

and the pending Food and Drug 

Administration traceability rules, in 

order to close a loophole for any illegal 

catch of North Atlantic shortfin mako 

sharks. 

Response: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. The 

purpose of this action is to implement 

ICCAT Recommendation 21–09, which 

prohibits the retention of North Atlantic 

shortfin mako sharks caught in 

association with ICCAT fisheries in 

2022 and 2023, among other measures. 

For more information on the Seafood 

Import Monitoring Program, please refer 

to the website: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international/ 

seafood-import-monitoring-program. 

Comment 19: NMFS received 

comments that the Agency recommends 

a probability of 70 percent for 

rebuilding of overfished stocks in 

domestic fisheries, which commenters 

stated was not in line with past U.S. 

proposals on shortfin mako shark 

management at ICCAT, or with the 250- 

mt mortality threshold in 

Recommendation 21–09. 

Response: Consistent with the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP, the HMS 

management risk policy for most 

Atlantic shark stocks is to ensure a 70- 

percent likelihood of success in ending 

and preventing overfishing, rebuilding 

overfished stocks, and maintaining 

healthy stocks, because most sharks 

have low reproductive potential, are 

long-lived, and have slow population 

growth rates. Within the existing risk 

policy, a range between 50 and 70 

percent likelihood of success has also 

been considered depending on the stock 

and relevant circumstances, and is 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

The purpose of this action is to 

implement ICCAT Recommendation 21– 

09 on North Atlantic shortfin mako 

sharks. The measures in 

Recommendation 21–09 were adopted 

as part of a rebuilding program for North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark starting in 

2022 with the objectives to ‘‘end 

overfishing immediately and gradually 

achieve biomass levels sufficient to 

support MSY by 2070 with a probability 

of a range of between 60 and 70 percent 

at least.’’ These measures are consistent 

with ICCAT Recommendation 11–13 on 

the principles of decision making for 

ICCAT conservation and management 

measures and are also consistent with 

the HMS shark management risk policy 

and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements. 

Comment 20: One comment suggested 

that NMFS should consider the example 

of barndoor skate management, in 

which only limited landings under 

special permits were allowed before the 

population was declared fully rebuilt. 

Response: Barndoor skates are 

managed by the New England Fishery 

Management Council under the 

Northeast Skate Complex FMP (Skate 

FMP). The stock was determined to be 

overfished and possession and landing 

were prohibited in 2003 when the Skate 

FMP was first implemented (68 FR 

49693, August 19, 2003). As the stock 

was rebuilding, segments of the 

commercial skate fishery expressed an 

interest in developing an experimental 

fishery where limited landings would be 

permitted while collecting fishery and 

biological data. The study was approved 

under an EFP in 2014 (79 FR 26414, 

May 8, 2014), and the retention 

prohibition was ultimately removed in 

2018 after the barndoor skate stock was 

determined to be rebuilt (83 FR 48985, 

September 28, 2018). While NMFS and 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council felt that this approach and 

timing were appropriate given the stock 

conditions and specific fishery 

circumstances in this case, there are a 

wide variety of considerations and 

information that fishery managers must 

evaluate when determining whether to 

prohibit retention of a species and 

potentially permitting retention of 

prohibited species. There are a number 

of critical differences between the 

barndoor skate fishery and fisheries that 

catch shortfin mako sharks; for example, 

barndoor skate is not internationally 

managed, is not a North Atlantic-wide 

stock, and does not have a recreational 

fishery. 

The purpose of this action is to 

implement ICCAT Recommendation 21– 

09, including allowing for the 

possibility of limited future retention of 

shortfin mako sharks as determined by 

ICCAT consistent with this 

recommendation. Prohibiting shortfin 

mako shark retention while also 

allowing limited commercial retention 

under EFPs would not be consistent 

with the purpose of this action. 

Therefore, NMFS does not agree that 

barndoor skate fishery management is 

an appropriate model for U.S. shortfin 

mako shark fishery management. 

Comment 21: NMFS received 

comments that the Agency should 

expand the electronic monitoring 

requirement for retention of shortfin 

mako sharks that are dead at haulback 

in commercial fisheries to cover vessels 

fishing with bottom longline or gillnet 

gear, in addition to vessels fishing with 

pelagic longline gear. 

Response: In this action, the flexible 

shortfin mako shark retention limit with 

a default of zero applies in the HMS 

bottom longline and gillnet fisheries for 

sharks, although those fisheries are not 

considered to be ICCAT fisheries, which 

are defined as fisheries for tuna or tunalike species under the current ICCAT 

Convention. This approach is described 

in the responses to Comments 8 and 10. 

NMFS did not, however, implement a 

requirement that electronic monitoring 

be onboard in these fisheries in 

Amendment 11, because bottom 

longline and gillnet fisheries have 

minimal interactions with this species, 

and electronic monitoring was 

unnecessary to track such interactions 

effectively. The details of the bottom 

longline and gillnet requirements under 

Amendment 11 were referenced in this 

action in order to better explain the 

scope of the gears included under 

changes to the shortfin mako shark 

retention limit. However, NMFS did not 

propose or consider any changes to the 

electronic monitoring requirements in 

this action. The purpose of the action is 

to implement ICCAT Recommendation 

21–09, which does not require any 

regulatory changes in the United States 

regarding electronic monitoring. 

Therefore, this comment is beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment 22: NMFS received 

comments encouraging the Agency to 

respond to the 2021 petition from 

Defenders of Wildlife to list shortfin 

mako sharks as a threatened or 

endangered species under the ESA. 

Response: NMFS is actively working 

on the 12-month finding to consider 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
39380 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

listing shortfin mako sharks under the 

ESA and plans to release the 

determination soon. Because this 

comment refers to listing species under 

the ESA, this is beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

Comment 23: NMFS received 

comments that the United States should 

seek to extend no retention of shortfin 

mako sharks at ICCAT, rather than 

adhering to possible future retention 

according to Recommendation 21–09. 

Another comment suggested that the 

United States should submit a proposal 

at ICCAT to limit total mortality of 

South Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, 

including the same reporting 

requirements as in Recommendation 

21–09. 

Response: These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. To 

the extent that these comments are 

suggesting development of U.S. 

proposals at ICCAT, U.S. proposals and 

priorities for ICCAT generally are 

discussed in the context of the U.S. 

ICCAT Advisory Committee meetings, 

which typically have at least one 

session open to the public. 

Comment 24: NMFS received a 

comment calling for banning longline 

gear and all shark fisheries. 

Response: National Standard 1 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS 

to prevent overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, optimum yield 

from each fishery for the U.S. fishing 

industry. NMFS continually monitors 

the federal shark fisheries and, based on 

the best available scientific information, 

takes action needed to conserve and 

manage the fisheries. The purpose of 

this action is to implement ICCAT 

Recommendation 21–09 regarding North 

Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, as 

necessary and appropriate pursuant to 

ATCA, and to achieve domestic 

management objectives under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Recommendation 21–09 prohibits 

retention of North Atlantic shortfin 

mako sharks caught in association with 

ICCAT fisheries in 2022 and 2023, 

among other measures. The measures in 

Recommendation 21–09 were adopted 

as part of a rebuilding program for North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark starting in 

2022, with the objectives to ‘‘end 

overfishing immediately and gradually 

achieve biomass levels sufficient to 

support maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) by 2070 with a probability of a 

range of between 60 and 70 percent at 

least.’’ Banning longline gear and shark 

fisheries is beyond the scope of this 

action. 

Classification 

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. The NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that the final rule is 

consistent with the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and its amendments, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, ATCA, and other applicable law. 

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in 

effective date and to make the rule 

effective three days after publication in 

the Federal Register. Further delaying 

the effectiveness of these regulations 

could undermine the purpose of this 

action to implement ICCAT 

Recommendation 21–09, which was 

adopted in November 2021 and enters 

into force June 17, 2022. If effectiveness 

is delayed, retention of shortfin mako 

sharks will continue to be allowed in 

Atlantic HMS fisheries under the 

current regulations well past the entry 

into force date of, and contrary to the 

requirements of, this binding 

international measure. For all of these 

reasons, there is good cause to waive the 

30-day delay in the date of effectiveness. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

This final rule contains no 

information collection requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The 

FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (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 

analyses completed to support the 

action. A copy of this analysis is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

A summary is provided below. 

Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies 

to state the need for, and objective of, 

the final action. This action is needed 

because the current HMS regulations 

allow retention of shortfin mako sharks 

in certain limited circumstances in HMS 

fisheries, which is inconsistent with the 

2021 ICCAT recommendation. Under 

ATCA, NMFS is required to promulgate 

regulations as necessary and appropriate 

to implement binding ICCAT measures. 

This action is also needed in the nonICCAT fisheries to provide consistency 

for the regulated community and for 

enforcement purposes, making the 

management measures more effective in 

addressing overfishing and starting to 

rebuild the stock. 

The objective of this action is to 

implement ICCAT Recommendation 21– 

09 regarding North Atlantic shortfin 

mako sharks, as necessary and 

appropriate pursuant to ATCA, and to 

achieve domestic management 

objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. Recommendation 21–09 prohibits 

retention of North Atlantic shortfin 

mako sharks caught in association with 

ICCAT fisheries in 2022 and 2023, 

among other measures. The measures in 

Recommendation 21–09 were adopted 

as part of a rebuilding program for North 

Atlantic shortfin mako shark starting in 

2022, with the objectives to ‘‘end 

overfishing immediately and gradually 

achieve biomass levels sufficient to 

support maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) by 2070 with a probability of a 

range of between 60 and 70 percent at 

least.’’ See Chapter 1 of the EA for a full 

description of the need for and 

objectives of the final rule. 

Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires 

a summary of significant issues raised 

by the public in response to the IRFA, 

a summary of the agency’s assessment of 

such issues, and a statement of any 

changes made as a result of the 

comments. NMFS received 22 written 

comments on the proposed rule and 

Draft EA during the public comment 

period. A summary of those comments 

and the agency’s responses are 

described above. The comments did not 

refer to the IRFA or the economic 

impacts of the rule. One commenter (see 

Comment 3) noted that the rule would 

not have substantial economic impacts 

on commercial or for-hire fisheries or 

HMS tournaments. 

Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires 

the response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the SBA 

comments. NMFS did not receive 

comments from the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA in response to the 

proposed rule. 

Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires 

agencies to provide descriptions of, and 

where feasible, an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

rule would apply. NMFS established a 

small business size standard of $11 

million in annual gross receipts for all 

businesses in the commercial fishing 

industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA 

compliance purposes. The SBA has 

established size standards for all other 

major industry sectors in the United 

States, including the scenic and 

sightseeing transportation (water) sector 

(NAICS code 487210), which includes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39381 

for-hire (charter/party boat) fishing 

entities. The SBA has defined a small 

entity under the scenic and sightseeing 

transportation (water) sector as one with 

average annual receipts (revenue) of less 

than $8 million. 

NMFS considers all HMS permit 

holders, both commercial and for-hire, 

to be small entities because they had 

average annual receipts of less than 

their respective sector’s standard of $11 

million and $8 million. Regarding those 

entities that would be directly affected 

by the final measures, the average 

annual revenue per active pelagic 

longline vessel is estimated to be 

$202,000, based on approximately 90 

active vessels that produced an 

estimated $18.2 million in revenue in 

2020, well below the NMFS small 

business size standard for commercial 

fishing businesses of $11 million. No 

single pelagic longline vessel has 

exceeded $11 million in revenue in 

recent years. Other non-longline HMS 

commercial fishing vessels typically 

earn less revenue than pelagic longline 

vessels and, thus, would also be 

considered small entities. 

The final rule would apply to the 213 

Shark Directed limited access permit 

(LAP) holders, 256 Shark Incidental 

LAP holders, and 4,055 HMS Charter/ 

Headboat permit holders, based on 2021 

data. Of those HMS Charter/Headboat 

permit holders, 3,021 obtained shark 

endorsements. In 2018 and 2019, 800 

HMS for-hire trips targeting shortfin 

mako sharks were taken per year on 

average (7 percent on average of total 

HMS for-hire trips), from Maine to 

Virginia as captured in Large Pelagics 

Survey data. These trips were taken by, 

on average, 10 percent of HMS for-hire 

charter/headboat vessels. On average, 

there were 44 Atlantic HMS 

tournaments that targeted pelagic sharks 

(primarily shortfin mako sharks) in 2018 

through 2021. There were 

approximately 1,555 directed shortfin 

mako shark trips in registered HMS 

tournaments on average in 2018 through 

2021. On average, 26 federallypermitted dealers per year purchased 

shortfin mako sharks in 2018 through 

2020. NMFS has determined that the 

preferred alternative would not likely 

directly affect any small organizations 

or small government jurisdictions 

defined under the RFA, nor would there 

be disproportionate economic impacts 

between large and small entities. 

Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires 

agencies to describe any new reporting, 

record-keeping, and other compliance 

requirements. This action does not 

contain any new collection of 

information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. 

Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires 

agencies to describe the steps the agency 

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 why each 

one of the other significant alternatives 

to the rule considered by the agency 

which affect the impact on small 

entities was rejected. 

As described below, NMFS analyzed 

several different alternatives in this final 

rulemaking and provides rationales for 

identifying the preferred alternatives to 

achieve the desired objectives. The 

FRFA assumes that each vessel will 

have similar catch and gross revenues to 

show the relative impact of the final 

action on vessels. 

Alternative 1, the no action 

alternative, would not implement any 

new management measures in the 

commercial or for-hire shark fisheries to 

decrease mortality of shortfin mako 

sharks. In recent years, about 49,000 

pounds dressed weight (dw) (22,000 

kilograms dw) of shortfin mako sharks 

have been landed commercially on 

average from 2018 through 2020 and the 

commercial revenues from shortfin 

mako sharks have averaged 

approximately $96,000 per year. The 

number of pounds of shortfin mako 

shark landed, revenue, and number of 

pelagic longline vessels that landed 

shortfin mako sharks was lower in 2020 

compared to 2018 and 2019 (average 

landings in 2018 and 2019 were 55,700 

pounds dw (25,000 kilograms dw), 

average revenue was approximately 

$109,600 per year, and average number 

of pelagic longline vessels landing 

shortfin mako sharks was 53). Almost 

all of the shortfin mako shark 

commercial landings, based on dealer 

reports, were made by pelagic longline 

vessels. An average of 49 pelagic 

longline vessels landed shortfin mako 

sharks from 2018 through 2020. 

Therefore, the average annual revenue 

from shortfin mako shark landings per 

pelagic longline vessel is approximately 

$1,960 per year ($96,000/49) under the 

current regulations. For-hire shark 

fishing operations by HMS Charter/ 

Headboat permit holders as well as 

HMS tournament operations would also 

remain the same. This alternative would 

result in no additional economic 

impacts on small entities associated 

with these fisheries in the short- or longterm. 

Alternative 2, the preferred 

alternative, would implement a flexible 

shortfin mako shark retention limit with 

a default limit of zero. The limit of zero 

would be in place unless and until 

changed after considering inseason trip 

limit adjustment criteria (§ 635.24(a)(8)) 

and when consistent with ICCAT 

retention allowances pursuant to 

Recommendation 21–09. This would 

apply to commercial vessels issued a 

Shark Directed or Shark Incidental LAP 

and to HMS Charter/Headboat permit 

holders. Under a retention limit of zero, 

HMS for-hire fishermen and commercial 

vessels would be required to release all 

shortfin mako sharks that are alive at 

haulback and discard all shortfin mako 

sharks that are dead at haulback. 

In recent years, about 49,000 pounds 

dw (22,000 kilograms dw) of shortfin 

mako sharks have been landed 

commercially on average from 2018 

through 2020, and the commercial 

revenues from shortfin mako sharks 

have averaged approximately $96,000 

fishery-wide per year. Almost all of the 

shortfin mako shark commercial 

landings, based on dealer reports, were 

made by pelagic longline vessels. An 

average of 49 pelagic longline vessels 

landed shortfin mako sharks from 2018 

through 2020. Therefore, the average 

loss in annual revenue from shortfin 

mako shark landings per pelagic 

longline vessel that landed shortfin 

mako sharks would be approximately 

$1,960 per year ($96,000/49). However, 

the overall economic impacts associated 

with these reductions in revenue are not 

expected to be substantial, as shortfin 

mako sharks comprise less than one 

percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues 

on average. Additionally, the magnitude 

of shortfin mako landings by other 

commercial gear types (bottom longline 

and gillnet) is very small. 

This alternative would have minor 

economic costs on small entities in 

those commercial fisheries compared to 

the no action alternative because these 

measures would reduce the number of 

shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by 

these fishing vessels. Shortfin mako 

sharks are rarely a target species, 

however, and generate much less 

revenue overall than other more 

valuable target species. In for-hire 

fisheries and tournaments, retention 

would be prohibited, and fishermen 

would only be authorized to catch and 

release shortfin mako sharks. A 

retention limit of zero for shortfin mako 

sharks is likely to be a disincentive to 

fishing by some portion of the for-hire 

shark fishery, particularly those 

individuals that would otherwise have 

planned to target and retain shortfin 

mako sharks. Charter/Headboat 

operators may experience some decline 

in demand if shortfin mako sharks may 

not be retained, resulting in minor 

adverse economic impacts. For Atlantic 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
39382 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

HMS tournaments, the 1,555 directed 

shortfin mako shark trips, on average, 

that take place in HMS tournaments 

would likely no longer take place, 

resulting in a loss of approximately $1.1 

million in expenditures, out of an 

estimated $85.6 million in total HMS 

tournament expenditures by 

participating teams. Overall, this 

alternative would have minor economic 

costs on small entities in the short-term 

compared to the no action alternative. 

During the fishing year, based on the 

inseason trip limit adjustment criteria 

(§ 635.24(a)(8)), and to the extent 

consistent with any future retention 

allowance that is determined by ICCAT 

pursuant to Recommendation 21–09, 

NMFS could increase the shortfin mako 

shark retention limit for the commercial 

fishery, the recreational fishery, or both, 

as appropriate. If the retention limit for 

the commercial and recreational 

fisheries is greater than zero, the current 

shortfin mako shark regulatory 

requirements, described under 

Alternative 1, would apply. This would 

result in no additional economic 

impacts on small entities associated 

with this fishery in the long-term 

compared to the no action alternative. 

Alternative 3 would add shortfin 

mako sharks to the prohibited sharks 

species group to prohibit any catch or 

retention of shortfin mako sharks in 

commercial and recreational HMS 

fisheries. See Table 1, section D, in 

appendix A to 50 CFR part 635 (list of 

prohibited sharks), § 635.24(a)(5) 

(related vessel restrictions), and 

§ 635.34(c) (criteria for adding species 

to, or removing species from, the 

prohibited shark species group). The 

overall economic impacts associated 

with reductions in revenue for the 

commercial and for-hire fisheries and 

HMS tournaments would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 2 and 

are not expected to be substantial, as 

shortfin mako sharks comprise less than 

one percent of total HMS ex-vessel 

revenues on average. This alternative 

would have minor economic costs on 

small entities in commercial fisheries 

because no shortfin mako sharks would 

be landed and sold by these fishing 

vessels under these measures. Shortfin 

mako sharks are rarely a target species, 

however, and generate less revenue 

overall than other more valuable target 

species. In for-hire fisheries and 

tournaments, retention would be 

prohibited, and fishermen would only 

be authorized to catch and release 

shortfin mako sharks. A prohibition on 

the retention of shortfin mako sharks is 

likely to be a disincentive for some 

portion of the for-hire shark fishery, 

particularly those individuals that 

would otherwise have planned to target 

and retain shortfin mako sharks. 

Charter/Headboat operators may 

experience some decline in demand, 

resulting in adverse economic impacts. 

For Atlantic HMS tournaments, the 

1,555 directed shortfin mako shark trips, 

on average, that take place in HMS 

tournaments would likely no longer take 

place, resulting in a loss of 

approximately $1.1 million in 

expenditures, out of an estimated $85.6 

million in total HMS tournament 

expenditures by participating teams. 

Overall, Alternative 3 would have minor 

economic costs on small entities in the 

short- and long-term. 

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. As part of this 

rulemaking process, a web page that 

also serves as small entity compliance 

guide (the guide) was prepared. This 

final rule and the guide are available on 

the HMS Management Division website 

at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/proposed-changes-atlanticshortfin-mako-shark-retention-limits or 

by contacting Carrie Soltanoff at 

carrie.soltanoff@noaa.gov or 301–427– 

8503. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Statistics, Treaties. 

Dated: June 27, 2022. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY 

MIGRATORY SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 635 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1801 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 635.20, revise paragraph (e)(6) 

to read as follows: 

§ 635.20 Size limits. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(6) For shortfin mako sharks landed 

when the recreational retention limit 

specified at § 635.22(c)(8) is greater than 

zero, males must be at least 71 inches 

(180 cm) fork length, and females must 

be at least 83 inches (210 cm) fork 

length. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 635.21, revise paragraph 

(c)(1)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 635.21 Gear operation and deployment 

restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Has pelagic longline gear on 

board, persons aboard that vessel are 

required to promptly release in a 

manner that causes the least harm any 

shortfin mako shark that is alive at the 

time of haulback, consistent with the 

requirements specified at paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (c)(6)(i) of this section. When 

the commercial retention limit specified 

at § 635.24(a)(4)(v) is greater than zero, 

any shortfin mako shark that is dead at 

the time of haulback may be retained 

provided the electronic monitoring 

system is installed and functioning in 

compliance with the requirements at 

§ 635.9. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 635.22, revise paragraph (c)(2) 

and add paragraph (c)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.22 Recreational retention limits. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Only one shark from the following 

list may be retained per vessel per trip, 

subject to the size limits described in 

§ 635.20(e)(2) and (4): Atlantic blacktip, 

Gulf of Mexico blacktip, bull, great 

hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, 

smooth hammerhead, lemon, nurse, 

spinner, tiger, blue, common thresher, 

oceanic whitetip, porbeagle, Atlantic 

sharpnose, finetooth, Atlantic 

blacknose, Gulf of Mexico blacknose, 

and bonnethead. 

* * * * * 

(8) At the start of each fishing year, 

the default shortfin mako shark 

retention limit of zero sharks per vessel 

per trip will apply. During the fishing 

year, NMFS may adjust the default 

shortfin mako shark trip limit per the 

inseason trip limit adjustment criteria 

listed in § 635.24(a)(8). Any retention 

within the trip limit is subject to the 

size limits described in § 635.20(e)(6). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 635.24: 

■ a. Add paragraph (a)(4) introductory 

text; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 39383 

■ b. Revise paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (iii); 

■ c. Add paragraph (a)(4)(v); 

■ d. Revise paragraphs (a)(8)(v) and (vi); 

and 

■ e. Add paragraph (a)(8)(vii). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 635.24 Commercial retention limits for 

sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Additional retention limits for 

sharks. (i) Except as provided in 

§ 635.22(c)(7), a person who owns or 

operates a vessel that has been issued a 

directed shark LAP may retain, possess, 

land, or sell pelagic sharks if the pelagic 

shark fishery is open per §§ 635.27 and 

635.28. Shortfin mako sharks may be 

retained by persons aboard vessels using 

pelagic longline, bottom longline, or 

gillnet gear only if NMFS has adjusted 

the commercial retention limit above 

zero pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(v) of 

this section and only if the shark is dead 

at the time of haulback and consistent 

with the provisions of §§ 635.21(c)(1), 

(d)(5), and (g)(6) and 635.22(c)(7). 

* * * * * 

(iii) Consistent with paragraph 

(a)(4)(ii) of this section, a person who 

owns or operates a vessel that has been 

issued an incidental shark LAP may 

retain, possess, land, or sell no more 

than 16 SCS and pelagic sharks, 

combined, per vessel per trip, if the 

respective fishery is open per §§ 635.27 

and 635.28. Of those 16 SCS and pelagic 

sharks per vessel per trip, no more than 

8 shall be blacknose sharks. Shortfin 

mako sharks may be retained under the 

commercial retention limits by persons 

using pelagic longline, bottom longline, 

or gillnet gear only if NMFS has 

adjusted the commercial retention limit 

above zero pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(4)(v) of this section and only if the 

shark is dead at the time of haulback 

and consistent with the provisions at 

§ 635.21(c)(1), (d)(5), and (g)(6). If the 

vessel has also been issued a permit 

with a shark endorsement and retains a 

shortfin mako shark, recreational 

retention limits apply to all sharks 

retained and none may be sold, per 

§ 635.22(c)(7). 

* * * * * 

(v) At the start of each fishing year, 

the default shortfin mako shark 

retention limit of zero sharks will apply. 

During the fishing year, NMFS may 

adjust the default shortfin mako shark 

trip limit per the inseason trip limit 

adjustment criteria listed in paragraph 

(a)(8) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(v) Variations in seasonal distribution, 

abundance, or migratory patterns of the 

relevant shark species based on 

scientific and fishery-based knowledge; 

(vi) Effects of catch rates in one part 

of a region or sub-region precluding 

vessels in another part of that region or 

sub-region from having a reasonable 

opportunity to harvest a portion of the 

relevant quota; and/or 

(vii) Any shark retention allowance 

set by ICCAT, the amount of remaining 

allowance, and the expected or reported 

catch rates of the relevant shark species, 

based on dealer and other harvest 

reports. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 635.27, revise paragraph 

(b)(4)(i) and add paragraph (b)(4)(v) to 

read as follows: 

§ 635.27 Quotas. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) The base annual quota for persons 

who collect LCS other than sandbar, 

SCS, pelagic sharks other than shortfin 

mako, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or 

prohibited species under a display 

permit or EFP is 57.2 mt ww (41.2 mt 

dw). 

* * * * * 

(v) No persons may collect shortfin 

mako sharks under a display permit. 

Collection of shortfin mako sharks for 

research under EFPs and/or SRPs may 

be considered on a case-by-case basis 

and any associated mortality would be 

deducted from the shark research and 

display quota if shortfin mako shark 

retention is otherwise prohibited or 

counted against U.S. allowable retention 

levels established at ICCAT when 

retention is allowed. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–14116 Filed 6–30–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 180117042–8884–02; RTID 

0648–XC020] 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the Angling 

category northern area fishery for large 

medium and giant Atlantic bluefin tuna 

(BFT) (i.e., ‘‘trophy’’ fish measuring 73 

inches (185 cm) curved fork length or 

greater). This closure applies to Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Angling and 

Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat 

permitted vessels when fishing 

recreationally for BFT. This action is 

necessary because landings data 

indicate the Angling category northern 

area trophy BFT subquota of 1.8 mt has 

been reached and exceeded. 

DATES: Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, 

June 29, 2022, through December 31, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Williamson, ann.williamson@noaa.gov, 

301–427–8503, Larry Redd, Jr., 

larry.redd@noaa.gov, 301–427–8503, or 

Nicholas Velseboer, nicholas.velseboer@

noaa.gov, 978–281–9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

HMS fisheries, including BFT fisheries, 

are managed under the authority of the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 

16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.). The 2006 Consolidated Atlantic 

HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

and its amendments are implemented 

by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. 

Section 635.27 divides the U.S. BFT 

quota recommended by the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

and as implemented by the United 

States among the various domestic 

fishing categories, per the allocations 

established in the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments. 

NMFS is required under the MagnusonStevens Act to provide U.S. fishing 

vessels with a reasonable opportunity to 

harvest quotas under relevant 

international fishery agreements such as 

the ICCAT Convention, which is 

implemented domestically pursuant to 

ATCA. 

Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a 

closure notice with the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication when a 

BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is 

projected to be reached. Retaining, 

possessing, or landing BFT under that 

quota category is prohibited on and after 

the effective date and time of a closure 

notice for that category, for the 

remainder of the fishing year, until the 

opening of the subsequent quota period 

or until such date as specified. 

The 2022 BFT fishing year, which is 

managed on a calendar-year basis and 

subject to an annual calendar-year 

quota, began January 1, 2022. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES