Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57235 

timeframes to bring a claim. HRSA 

invites comments on deadlines for 

responses to submissions by the 

participants, the government and 

deciding body or official and the 

consequences of failure to meet a 

particular deadline. 

(8) Discovery Procedures 

HRSA is requesting input on the 

process used for discovery of 

information from participating 

manufacturers and covered entities. 

HRSA will need to determine the scope 

of documents (information, reports, 

answers, records, accounts, papers, 

documentary evidence, etc.) and 

interrogatories eligible for discovery. 

HRSA will also need to determine under 

what circumstances (irrelevancy, 

privileged information, unduly 

burdensome, etc.) protective orders 

should be utilized. Procedures to ensure 

the confidentiality of information 

discovered will also need to be 

developed. Finally, a determination will 

need to be made as to the power to 

compel discovery from third parties 

given that OPA has limited direct 

regulatory authority through the 340B 

Program over entities and individuals 

outside of 340B participating drug 

manufacturers and covered entities. 

(9) Manufacturer Audits 

The administrative dispute resolution 

requirements of the Affordable Care Act 

set forth that manufacturers must 

conduct an audit of a covered entity 

prior to bringing a claim. HRSA 

currently has guidelines regarding the 

requirements for initiating an audit (61 

FR 65406). However, over the history of 

the 340B Program manufacturers have 

rarely utilized the process in the 

guidelines to conduct an audit. HRSA 

invites comments on whether it is 

appropriate or necessary to modify the 

guidelines concerning audits prior to 

implementing the administrative 

dispute resolution regulation or whether 

the current final guidelines are 

sufficient. 

(10) Consolidation of Manufacturer 

Claims 

HRSA is required to create a process 

for consideration of whether requests by 

a manufacturer or manufacturers to 

consolidate claims by more than one 

manufacturer against the same covered 

entity are ‘‘appropriate and consistent 

with the goals of fairness and economy 

of resources.’’ HRSA seeks comments on 

how to create this process, the evidence 

to be considered, timing of requests to 

join in a consolidated claim, and the 

interests to be weighed. 

(11) Covered Entity Consolidation of 

Claims 

Similar to the consolidation of 

manufacturer claims, HRSA is required 

to create a process for consideration of 

requests for consolidation of particular 

covered entity claims. HRSA invites 

comment on whether the standard for 

manufacturers and covered entities 

should differ and whether there should 

be a presumption of allowing such 

consolidation of claims absent a finding 

that consolidation would be 

inconsistent with the goals of fairness 

and economy of resources. 

(12) Claims by Organizations 

Representing Covered Entities 

The legislation provides for claims by 

organizations representing entities. 

HRSA is interested in input on when a 

third party can bring claims on behalf of 

member covered entities in the context 

of a binding formal dispute resolution 

process and how to ensure that the 

group in fact represents the interests of 

the covered entities. In order to ensure 

that such organizations actually 

represent the interests of covered 

entities, HRSA is contemplating that 

prior to seeking to file a claim on behalf 

of covered entities, such groups must 

have a signed agreement with the 

covered entities. The agreement would 

indicate that the organization is 

authorized to bring a claim on behalf of 

the covered entities; the precise nature 

of the claim; that the covered entities 

agree to participate in good faith and 

abide by discovery procedures; and that 

the covered entities agree to be bound 

by any decision of the decision-making 

official or body. HRSA contemplates a 

decision-making official or body having 

the authority to not allow claims that 

would result in unfairness or a 

substantial waste of resources. 

(13) Integration of Dispute Resolutions 

With Other Provisions in the Affordable 

Care Act 

In addition to the compliance tools 

already available to HRSA, such as 

audits and alternative dispute 

resolution, the Affordable Care Act 

provides HRSA with many additional 

tools to monitor compliance. These 

additional tools include establishing 

procedures to verify the accuracy of 

ceiling prices; creating processes for 

manufacturers to refund overcharges; 

selective auditing of manufacturers; 

annual recertification of covered 

entities; and providing access to ceiling 

price information. The use of the new 

administrative dispute resolution 

authority must be used in conjunction 

with these other compliance tools to 

ensure its most effective use. HRSA 

invites comments concerning the 

relationship between administrative 

dispute resolution and other oversight 

mechanisms. 

While these thirteen areas were 

identified for comment, we welcome 

comments on any other issues that 

stakeholders believe are key to 

implementing an effective alternate 

dispute resolution process. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Mary K. Wakefield, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23460 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4165–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 100825390–0431–01] 

RIN 0648–BA17 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Shark Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 

to provide background information and 

request public comment on potential 

adjustments to the regulations governing 

the U.S. Atlantic shark fishery to 

address several specific issues currently 

affecting management of the shark 

fishery and to identify specific goals for 

management of fishery in the future. 

NMFS is requesting public comment 

regarding the potential implementation 

of changes to the quota and/or permit 

structure that are currently in place for 

the Atlantic shark fishery. NMFS is also 

requesting comments on the 

implementation of programs such as 

catch shares, limited access privilege 

programs (LAPPs), individual fishing 

quotas (IFQs), and/or sectors for the 

Atlantic shark fishery. 

DATES: Written comments regarding the 

issues in this ANPR must be received no 

later than 5 p.m. on January 14, 2011. 

Public meetings to obtain additional 

comments on the items discussed in this 

ANPR will be held in September, 

October, November, and December 

2010. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this ANPR for 

specific dates, times, and locations. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘0648–BA17’’, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 301–713–1917, Attn: Margo 

Schulze-Haugen. 

• Mail: NMFS SF1, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are part of the public record and 

generally will be posted to portal 

http://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit confidential 

business information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Related documents, including the 

2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) and its amendments and the 

2009 Stock Assessment and Fishery 

Evaluation (SAFE) Report are available 

upon request at the mailing address 

noted above or on the HMS 

Management Division’s Web page at: 

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

Public meetings to obtain additional 

comments on the items discussed in this 

ANPR will be held in New Jersey, North 

Carolina, Maryland (HMS Advisory 

Panel (AP) meeting), Florida, and 

Louisiana. Please see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this ANPR for specific dates, times, and 

locations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karyl Brewster-Geisz, LeAnn Southward 

Hogan or Delisse Ortiz at 301–713–2347 

or fax at 301–713–1917. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Atlantic shark fisheries are managed 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). In 1999, NMFS revised the 1993 

Shark FMP and included swordfish and 

tunas in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic 

Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 

FMP). The 1999 FMP was amended in 

2003, and in 2006, NMFS consolidated 

the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and shark 

FMP and its amendments and the 

Atlantic billfish FMP and its 

amendments into the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP. The 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP was amended 

in 2008 and 2010 to address 

management needs in the Atlantic shark 

fishery. 

I. Background 

The Fishery Conservation 

Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–627) 

amended the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(later renamed the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act or Magnuson-Stevens Act) and gave 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

the authority to manage HMS in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea under authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1811, 

16 U.S.C. 1854(f)(3)). The Secretary has 

delegated the authority to manage 

Atlantic HMS to NMFS. 

In 1993, NMFS implemented the FMP 

for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean. Some 

of the management measures in the 

1993 FMP included: 

• Establishing a fishery management 

unit (FMU) consisting of 39 frequentlycaught species of Atlantic sharks, 

separated into three groups for 

assessment and regulatory purposes 

(Large Coastal Sharks (LCS), Small 

Coastal Sharks (SCS), and pelagic 

sharks); 

• Establishing calendar year 

commercial quotas for the LCS and 

pelagic sharks and dividing the annual 

quota into two equal half-year quotas 

that applied to the following two fishing 

periods—January 1 through June 30 and 

July 1 through December 31; 

• Establishing a recreational trip limit 

of four sharks per vessel for LCS or 

pelagic shark species groups and a daily 

bag limit of five sharks per person for 

sharks in the SCS species group; 

• Establishing a framework procedure 

for adjusting commercial quotas, 

recreational bag limits, species size 

limits, management units, fishing year, 

species groups, estimates of maximum 

sustainable yield (MSY), and permitting 

and reporting requirements; 

• Prohibiting finning by requiring 

that the ratio between wet fins and 

dressed carcass weight at landing not 

exceed five percent; 

• Prohibiting the sale by recreational 

fishermen of sharks or shark products 

caught in the EEZ; 

• Requiring annual commercial 

permits for fishermen who harvest and 

sell shark products (meat products and 

fins); and 

• Establishing a permit eligibility 

requirement that the owner or operator 

(including charter vessel and headboat 

owners/operators who intend to sell 

their catch) show proof that at least 50 

percent of earned income has been 

derived from the sale of the fish or fish 

products or charter vessel and headboat 

operations or at least $20,000 from the 

sale of fish during one of three years 

preceding the permit request. 

Based in part on the results of the 

1998 LCS stock assessment, in April 

1999, NMFS published the final 1999 

FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and 

Sharks, which included numerous 

measures to rebuild or prevent 

overfishing of Atlantic sharks in 

commercial and recreational fisheries. 

The 1999 FMP amended and replaced 

the 1993 FMP. Some of the management 

measures related to sharks that changed 

in the 1999 FMP included: 

• Reducing commercial LCS and SCS 

quotas; 

• Establishing ridgeback and nonridgeback categories of LCS; 

• Implementing a commercial 

minimum size for ridgeback LCS; 

• Reducing recreational retention 

limits for all sharks; 

• Establishing a recreational 

minimum size for all sharks except 

Atlantic sharpnose; 

• Implementing limited access in 

commercial fisheries; 

• Establishing new procedures for 

counting dead discards and state 

landings of sharks after Federal fishing 

season closures against Federal quotas; 

and 

• Establishing season-specific overand underharvest adjustment 

procedures. 

In 2002, additional LCS and SCS 

stock assessments were conducted. 

Based on these assessments, NMFS reexamined many of the shark 

management measures in the 1999 FMP 

for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and 

Sharks and amended the 1999 FMP 

(Amendment 1). The changes in 

Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP affected 

all aspects of shark management. The 

final management measures in 

Amendment 1 included, among other 

things: 

• Aggregating the LCS; 

• Using MSY as a basis for setting 

commercial quotas; 

• Eliminating the commercial 

minimum size; 

• Establishing regional commercial 

quotas and trimester commercial fishing 

seasons, adjusting the recreational bag 

and size limits, establishing gear 

restrictions to reduce bycatch or reduce 

bycatch mortality; and 

• Establishing a time/area closure off 

the coast of North Carolina. 

The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

consolidated the management of all 

Atlantic HMS into one comprehensive 

FMP, adjusted the regulatory framework 

measures, continued the process for 

updating HMS Essential Fish Habitat 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57237 

(EFH), and combined and simplified the 

objectives of the previous FMPs. 

Measures that were specific to the shark 

fisheries included, but were not limited 

to: 

• Mandatory protected species safe 

handling and release workshops and 

certifications for all vessel owners and 

operators that have pelagic longline 

(PLL) or bottom longline (BLL) gear on 

their vessels and that had been issued 

or were required to be issued any of the 

HMS limited access permits (LAPs) to 

participate in HMS longline and gillnet 

fisheries. 

• Mandatory Atlantic shark 

identification workshops for all 

federally permitted shark dealers to 

train shark dealers to properly identify 

shark carcasses; and 

• The requirement that the second 

dorsal fin and the anal fin remain on all 

sharks through landing. 

In 2005/2006, new stock assessments 

were conducted on the LCS complex, 

and sandbar, blacktip, porbeagle, and 

dusky sharks. Based on the results of 

those assessments, NMFS amended the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

(Amendment 2). NMFS implemented 

management measures consistent with 

recent stock assessments for sandbar, 

porbeagle, dusky, and blacktip sharks 

and the LCS complex. Some of the 

management measures implemented in 

Amendment 2 included: 

• Initiating rebuilding plans for 

porbeagle, dusky, and sandbar sharks 

consistent with stock assessments; 

• Implementing commercial quotas 

and retention limits consistent with 

stock assessment recommendations to 

prevent overfishing and rebuild 

overfished stocks; 

• Modifying recreational measures to 

reduce fishing mortality of overfished 

stocks and stocks with overfishing 

occurring; 

• Modifying reporting requirements; 

• Requiring that all Atlantic sharks be 

offloaded with fins naturally attached; 

and 

• Collecting shark life history 

information via the implementation of a 

shark research program. 

An SCS stock assessment was 

finalized during the summer of 2007 

which assessed finetooth, Atlantic 

sharpnose, blacknose, and bonnethead 

sharks. Based on the results of this 

assessment, NMFS amended the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 

3). The measures in Amendment 3 

included, among other things: 

• Implementing a rebuilding plan for 

blacknose sharks; 

• Implementing commercial SCS 

quotas consistent with stock assessment 

recommendations; 

• Taking action at the international 

level to end overfishing of shortfin mako 

sharks; and 

• Promoting the release of shortfin 

mako sharks in the recreational and 

commercial fisheries. 

A. Need for Action 

As outlined above, since sharks have 

been federally managed, there have been 

many changes to the regulations and 

major rules related to sharks, either 

through FMP amendments or regulatory 

amendments, in order to respond to 

results of stock assessments, changes in 

stock status, and other fishery 

fluctuations. Despite modifications to 

the regulations or Amendments to the 

FMP in order to respond to these 

changes, the Atlantic shark fishery, 

particularly the LCS portion of the 

fishery, continues to be faced with 

problems such as commercial landings 

that exceed the quotas, declining 

numbers of fishing permits since limited 

access was implemented, complex 

regulations, ‘‘derby’’ fishing conditions 

due to small quotas and short seasons, 

increasing numbers of regulatory 

discards, and declining market prices. 

Rather than react to these issues every 

year with a new regulation or every 

other year with a new FMP amendment, 

NMFS would like to be more proactive 

in management and explore methods to 

establish more flexible regulations that 

would consider the changing needs of 

the fishery. To achieve this objective, 

NMFS must establish specific long-term 

management goals for the shark fishery, 

including the goals of rebuilding 

overfished stocks, preventing 

overfishing, and the other objectives of 

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and 

its amendments. In this ANPR, NMFS 

requests comments and input on what 

the specific fishery goals should be and 

on potential short-term and long-term 

changes to the Atlantic shark fishery in 

order to achieve those goals. 

II. Potential Management Solutions 

A. Quota Structure Changes 

Several changes could be made to the 

current shark quota structure. Currently, 

NMFS calculates the total allowable 

catch (TAC) for a shark species based on 

stock assessments. NMFS partitions 

these TACs into commercial landings, 

recreational landings, and dead 

discards. NMFS bases the commercial 

quotas on the commercial landings 

partition and adjusts them according to 

rebuilding plans to end overfishing. 

Within this overall quota structure, 

NMFS is considering changes. NMFS is 

considering, among other things: 

Managing the species in complexes only 

with no individual species quotas; 

having species-specific quotas only; 

moving species within a complex to 

different complexes; re-considering 

regional quotas; establishing bycatch 

quotas for prohibited shark species or 

protected resources; and limiting quotas 

by gear type such as gillnet quotas, BLL 

quotas, and recreational quotas. 

Managing the species in complexes 

only, with no individual species quotas, 

would re-establish the method of shark 

management established in the 1993 

FMP. For example, the fishery could 

return to an LCS complex, an SCS 

complex, and a pelagic shark complex. 

Managing the shark species by 

complexes in this way simplified season 

opening dates and the process for 

setting quotas. The species complex 

management approach worked well 

when the stock assessments were 

conducted on the complex, but became 

complicated when stock assessments 

began to be completed for individual 

species because stock assessment 

recommendations for TACs were given 

for individual species rather than for the 

complex. NMFS is seeking public 

comment on how, if NMFS were to 

return to this management structure, 

quotas should be set if the stock status 

of species differs within a complex. 

Should the overall complex quota be 

based on the species with the poorest 

stock status, the best stock status, or an 

average stock status? How should NMFS 

determine within which complex a 

species should be placed? Should the 

complex be based on biology, gear type, 

stock status, or something else? 

If NMFS were to move forward with 

species-specific quotas, this could result 

in more than twenty individual shark 

quotas. If each shark species had an 

individual quota, the season for each 

species could open and close at 

different times during the year. 

Currently, species-specific quotas 

within the shark fishery are based on 

recommendations from species-specific 

stock assessments. NMFS is seeking 

public comment on how, if a particular 

species has no species-specific stock 

assessment, the quotas should be 

derived. In the SCS fishery, there is a 

species-specific quota and a complex 

quota, and when the species-specific 

quota is caught, both the speciesspecific and the complex quotas are 

closed. If NMFS were to move to 

individual species quotas only, should 

these quotas be linked or should they 

close independently of each other? If the 

quotas were not linked, how should 

NMFS account for dead discards of each 

species? 

NMFS is considering whether 

blacktip sharks should be moved from 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57238 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the LCS complex to the SCS complex 

because this species tends to be caught 

with the same gear as the other SCS 

species, or whether this species should 

be removed from the LCS complex and 

managed separately. NMFS is seeking 

public comment on how blacktip sharks 

should be managed, including whether, 

if blacktip sharks were moved to the 

SCS complex, should the SCS complex 

quota be adjusted? If blacktip sharks 

were managed with an individual quota, 

how should this quota be derived? Are 

there other species that should move to 

different complexes or have their own 

quota? 

Other possible changes to the current 

shark quota structure could include reconsidering regional quotas. Currently, 

the LCS quotas are separated into an 

Atlantic quota and a Gulf of Mexico 

quota, and the SCS and pelagic shark 

fisheries have no regional quotas. In the 

past, the LCS fishery was managed in 

three regions: The Gulf of Mexico, North 

Atlantic and South Atlantic. The 

purpose of the three regions was to 

provide flexibility to adjust regional 

quotas to reduce mortality of juvenile 

and reproductive female sharks, provide 

fishing opportunities when sharks were 

present in various regions, and account 

for differences between species’ 

utilization of various pupping grounds. 

When the LCS fishery was managed in 

three regions, however, NMFS received 

feedback from fishery participants that 

this approach was not meeting the 

related goals to providing fishing 

opportunities. One reason for this was 

because there were instances when 

fishing effort would change in these 

regions and NMFS would have to 

transfer quota among regions to 

compensate for one region’s overharvest 

and another region’s underharvests of 

the regional quota. Due to regional 

differences in migration patterns and 

seasonality of some shark species, some 

fishery participants have expressed 

interest in further splitting the LCS 

quotas in the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico. NMFS is seeking public 

comment on these management issues 

and approaches, including: If additional 

regional quotas were developed, where 

should these regions occur and how 

should the quotas be determined? 

Similarly, if NMFS were to implement 

quotas specific to gear type, such as 

gillnet gear, BLL, and rod and reel, how 

should these quotas be established? 

B. Permit Structure Changes 

Several changes could be made to the 

Atlantic shark permit structure. 

Currently, the directed and incidental 

commercial shark permits are LAPs and 

no new commercial permits are being 

issued. NMFS implemented LAPs in the 

1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish 

and Sharks to remove latent effort from 

HMS commercial fisheries. As of 

November 2009, there were 221 directed 

permits and 282 incidental limited 

access permits in the Atlantic shark 

fishery. Currently, if new participants 

would like to join the fishery, they must 

find a participant who is willing to sell/ 

transfer his or her commercial permit. 

There are upgrading restrictions that 

apply to all directed limited access 

permit holders. An owner may upgrade 

a vessel with a directed limited access 

permit or transfer the directed limited 

access permit to another vessel only if 

the upgrade or transfer does not result 

in an increase in horsepower of more 

than 20 percent or an increase of more 

than 10 percent in length overall, gross 

registered tonnage, or net tonnage from 

the original qualifying vessel’s 

specifications. In addition, if a permit is 

expired for more than a year, the permit 

becomes permanently invalid and can 

no longer be renewed. NMFS therefore 

is considering and seeks public 

comment on management measures 

such as: Permit stacking; a use or lose 

permit system; and matching permit 

capacity to the shark quotas. 

If NMFS were to implement a permit 

stacking system (as explained below), 

this would likely mean that fishermen 

with multiple shark LAPs could use 

them concurrently on one vessel and 

that the trip limits of the individual 

permits could be used concurrently as 

well. For example, the current nonsandbar LCS trip limit is 33 per trip. 

Under permit stacking, if two directed 

shark permits were stacked onto one 

vessel, that vessel would have a trip 

limit of 66 non-sandbar LCS per trip. 

Such a system could provide additional 

opportunities and security for fishermen 

who have access to more than one 

permit and could provide for a more 

efficient use of resources where 

fishermen only need to pay fuel costs 

for one vessel rather than two or more 

vessels. While this approach may 

provide benefits for fishermen, NMFS 

also wants to explore the appropriate 

limits on permit stacking. For instance, 

such a system could provide for inactive 

permits to be brought back into the 

fishery resulting in additional effort and 

exacerbating current fishing problems. 

NMFS is seeking public comment on 

these types of issues, including, how 

many permits could be stacked onto one 

vessel? How would inactive/latent 

permits be handled, and could they be 

stacked onto an active vessel? Should 

incidental shark permits be eligible for 

stacking and could fishermen without 

multiple permits be able to buy 

additional permits in order to stack 

them on a vessel? How would a permit 

stacking system incorporate the 

upgrading restrictions that are currently 

in place? 

If NMFS were to implement a use or 

lose permit system, this may mean that 

fishermen who do not use their 

commercial shark permit for a specified 

amount of time would lose the permit 

and would be unable to re-enter the 

shark fishery. NMFS is seeking public 

comment and input on these types of 

measures, including how and whether 

this type of use or lose system should 

apply to directed and incidental shark 

permit holders and how long should 

permits remain inactive before they are 

lost. What should NMFS do with the 

permits that are lost? Should those 

permits be removed from the fishery 

permanently or should NMFS sell those 

permits to other fishermen? 

Another potential solution would be 

to limit the number of permits to match 

the effort needed to catch the quota over 

the entire year. NMFS is seeking public 

comment on these types of measures, 

including how and whether NMFS 

could implement a permit system of this 

type, and whether both inactive and 

active permits could be removed from 

the fishery. This type of system would 

be different from the current LAP 

system, as that system was designed to 

remove latent effort only. If permit 

numbers were matched to the amount of 

quota, how should those permits be 

allocated? Should the permits be given 

to the most active and directed shark 

fishermen (which would result in the 

fewest number of permits) or to the least 

active shark fishermen (which would 

result in more permits but could remove 

the fishermen who rely on the fishery 

the most)? 

C. Catch Shares 

NMFS has received multiple 

questions and requests from fishermen 

and other shark fishery constituents to 

consider catch shares for the Atlantic 

shark fishery. Requests to consider catch 

shares have come from gillnetters in 

Florida and BLL fishermen in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Additionally, fishermen 

throughout the fishery, including 

fishermen who fish only in state waters, 

have asked what catch shares would 

mean for the shark fishery. To be 

responsive to these requests, this section 

will give background information on 

catch shares, including sectors, and 

pose questions related to how these 

programs would apply to the Atlantic 

shark fishery. 

‘‘Catch share’’ is an umbrella term that 

is used to describe fishery management 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57239 

programs that provide a portion of the 

TAC to individuals, cooperatives, 

communities, or other eligible entities. 

Catch shares can include LAPPs, IFQs, 

sectors, and fishery cooperatives. Catch 

shares can address a variety of fishery 

needs such as lengthening fishing 

seasons, lowering operating costs, 

improving market conditions, 

promoting safe fishing operations, 

reducing bycatch and discard mortality, 

and improving quota monitoring and 

timely reporting. Catch shares can also 

address different fishery goals such as 

eliminating overfishing, stopping derby 

fishing, and improving socio-economic 

conditions. In addition, catch shares can 

address fishery concerns such as loss of 

small boats and fleets, exclusion of 

small vessel owners or new entrants, 

and sustainability of fishing 

communities. 

Each catch share program is unique 

and there are many elements to consider 

when designing one for a specific 

fishery. For example, the design needs 

to consider eligibility or who will 

participate in the catch share program, 

as well as the allocation of quota shares. 

When considering quota allocation, the 

duration of the quota shares, 

transferability of the shares, and 

preventing excessive accumulation of 

shares are important issues to consider. 

It is also important to consider how to 

protect existing fishery communities 

and business sectors and ensure the 

stability and participation of traditional 

operations. Many catch share programs 

apply to commercial fishermen, but 

recreational fishermen are an important 

part of most fisheries. As such, another 

consideration is the allocation between 

commercial and recreational fishermen 

and whether shares can be moved 

between those sectors. An additional 

element of a catch share program that 

should be considered is the monitoring 

and enforcement of the program and 

how to ensure compliance within the 

catch share program. 

When considering catch shares for the 

Atlantic shark fishery, NMFS has the 

following design questions: Should a 

catch share program encompass all 

species of Atlantic sharks? Should there 

be species-specific catch share programs 

within the Atlantic shark fishery? 

Should NMFS consider a pilot catch 

share program for certain species or 

regions? If a federal shark catch share 

program were implemented, how would 

that work with the different states or the 

Atlantic States Marine Fishery 

Commission (ASMFC)? Would the states 

or ASMFC have their own allocation, or 

would they be included in the federal 

catch share allocation? Since most of the 

current catch share programs apply to 

commercial fisheries, should the 

recreational shark fishery be considered 

for a catch share program? If so, how 

would that work? If not, how would the 

TAC be allocated between the two 

sectors? 

As described above, a catch share is 

an umbrella term that describes many 

types of programs. One type of catch 

share program is a sector program. A 

sector is a group of persons acting as an 

entity to which NMFS has granted a 

share or fraction of the TAC in order to 

achieve objectives and goals within a 

fishery consistent with an FMP. The 

allocation share to a sector would be to 

the group, not to individuals, and 

distribution of that allocation share to 

members of the group is internal to the 

group and is not handled by NMFS. A 

sector can negotiate and enforce plans, 

agreements and contracts similar to 

those required of fishing communities 

and regional fishery associations. The 

sector participants can select who 

would participate, and participation 

would be voluntary. The rules within a 

sector would be set up by the sector but 

would be agreed upon by NMFS. When 

considering sectors for the Atlantic 

shark fishery, a group of fishermen 

could decide on a sector approach and 

work with NMFS to design regulations 

specific to that sector that addressed the 

needs of the group. The regulations 

within a shark sector could include 

season openings and quota shares, 

among other things. Anyone outside of 

a sector within the shark fishery would 

follow general shark regulations. For 

example, for a number of years, directed 

shark gillnet fishermen, because of their 

experience with the gear and with 

working with the Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT), have 

been requesting that NMFS limit access 

of new participants into the shark 

gillnet fishery. Under a sector scenario, 

those fishermen could form a sector 

with specific gillnet regulations. 

Additionally, a number of fishermen 

along the Atlantic Ocean and in the Gulf 

of Mexico have been requesting NMFS 

to re-establish regions to allow them to 

fish when certain species of sharks are 

in their area. Under a sector scenario, 

those fishermen could form sectors (e.g., 

a North Atlantic sector and an eastern 

Gulf of Mexico sector). NMFS would 

then work with those sectors to 

establish specific season openings and 

quota allocations. Permit holders 

outside the sector, even if fishing in the 

same area, would not necessarily have 

the same season opening or quota 

availability as fishermen in that sector. 

As described above, sectors are just 

one type of catch share program. There 

are numerous examples in the United 

States and around the world of different 

types of catch share programs. Such a 

program is designed specifically for 

each fishery to address the problems in 

that fishery. Some catch share programs 

that appear successful are: The Alaska 

IFQ Halibut and Sablefish Program 

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

domes_fish/catchshare/docs/ 

ak_halibut_sablefish.pdf) and the 

Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/ 

catchshare/docs/gbcod_hooksector.pdf). 

NMFS is seeking public comment and 

input on catch share issues, including 

whether a type of catch share program 

may appear to provide the most 

opportunity and stability for the fishery. 

Which type of catch share program 

should NMFS consider or not consider 

and for what reasons? For additional 

information on catch shares please visit 

the NOAA Fisheries Catch Shares Web 

site at, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/ 

domes_fish/catchshare/index.htm. 

III. Shark Management Process 

In considering the above options for 

the shark fishery, it is also important to 

consider the different aspects of the 

rulemaking process. Currently, the 

Atlantic shark fishery is managed under 

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and 

its amendments. In certain cases, NMFS 

must amend the FMP; for example, 

when NMFS receives new fishery 

information such as new stock 

assessment information indicating a 

stock is overfished, NMFS must prepare 

an FMP amendment in order to develop 

a rebuilding plan for that particular 

shark species and to end overfishing. 

FMP amendments may be warranted 

due to other types of new information 

and generally take approximately two 

years to complete and implement. The 

public is involved in the amendment 

process during scoping and again at the 

proposed rule stage. An example of a 

recent amendment is Amendment 3 to 

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (75 FR 

30484, June 1, 2010), which was based 

on the 2007 SCS stock assessment that 

indicated NMFS needed to establish a 

rebuilding plan and end overfishing of 

blacknose sharks. 

Unlike FMP amendments, regulatory 

amendments are changes to the 

regulations that can be made without 

amending the FMP. Regulatory 

amendments are often the result of new 

information (e.g., the quota was filled 

faster than expected) and generally take 

about a year to complete and 

implement. Examples of past changes 

that have been made with regulatory 

amendments include implementing trip 

limits, implementing biological opinion 

requirements, changing regional quotas, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and changing gear operation and 

deployment requirements. Regulatory 

changes of this nature tend to be 

reactive and result when current 

management measures need to be 

modified. Generally, the public is 

involved at the proposed rule stage for 

these types of regulatory changes. 

Annual specifications are another 

type of rulemaking action that NMFS 

uses to adjust the annual commercial 

shark quotas that are established in the 

FMP. The annual specifications take 

about 6 months to complete. Annual 

specifications adjust the quotas based 

on over- and underharvests in the 

previous year(s) and establish season 

opening dates for the Atlantic shark 

fishery. A recent example of an annual 

specification is the final rule that 

established quotas and season opening 

dates for the 2010 Atlantic shark 

commercial fishing season based on 

over- and underharvests in 2009 (75 FR 

250, January 5, 2010). Depending on the 

outcome of this ANPR process, NMFS 

will consider rules or FMP amendments 

as appropriate. 

IV. Summary 

This ANPR explains the Atlantic 

shark management history while also 

describing ongoing issues within the 

shark fishery, as well as many 

approaches to future management that 

NMFS could implement in order to 

address these issues in the future. Some 

of the ideas discussed are specific 

changes to the current quota and permit 

structures, which could potentially be 

implemented in the short-term through 

a regulatory action in one to two years. 

The other changes discussed include 

implementing a catch share or sector 

program for the Atlantic shark fishery, 

which could be implemented by 

amending the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

FMP. It is NMFS’s goal to move forward 

with proactive management for the 

Atlantic shark fishery and implement a 

viable and flexible solution that will 

achieve specific shark fishery goals and 

objectives for the future of the Atlantic 

shark fishery. 

V. Submission of Public Comments 

The comment period for all topics 

discussed in this ANPR closes on 

January 14, 2011. Please see the 

ADDRESSES section of this ANPR for 

additional information regarding the 

submission of written comments. 

NMFS requests comments on the 

potential adjustment of regulations or an 

FMP amendment governing the Atlantic 

shark quota and permit structure as well 

as comments on the potential 

consideration of catch shares and 

sectors for the Atlantic shark fishery. 

The preceding sections provide 

background information regarding these 

topics and ideas for potential changes. 

The public is encouraged to submit 

comments related to the specific ideas 

and questions asked in each of the 

preceding sections. NMFS is also 

seeking additional ideas/solutions for 

changes to the Atlantic shark fishery. 

All written comments received by the 

due date will be considered in drafting 

proposed changes to the Atlantic shark 

regulations. In developing any proposed 

regulations, NMFS must consider and 

analyze ecological, social, and economic 

impacts. Therefore, NMFS encourages 

comments that would contribute to the 

required analyses, and respond to the 

questions presented in this ANPR. 

VI. Public Meetings 

NMFS will hold six public meetings 

to receive comments from fishery 

participants and other members of the 

public regarding this ANPR. These 

meetings will be physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Request for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Karyl Brewster-Geisz or LeAnn 

Southward Hogan at 301–713–2347 

(phone) or 301–713–19197 (fax), at least 

7 days prior to the meeting. For 

individuals unable to attend a meeting, 

NMFS also solicits written comments on 

the ANPR (see DATES and ADDRESSES). 

The meeting dates, locations, and 

times follow. All meetings will begin 

with an opportunity for individuals to 

view information on the issues raised in 

this ANPR and ask questions followed 

by a presentation and opportunity for 

public comment. 

1. September 21–23, 2010: HMS 

Advisory Panel Meeting, Crowne Plaza 

Hotel, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

2. October, 21, 2010: Ocean County 

Library, Stafford Branch, 129 North 

Main Street, Manahawkin, New Jersey 

08050, 6–9 p.m. 

3. October 26, 2010: Manteo Town 

Hall, 407 Budleigh Street, Manteo, 

North Carolina 27954, 6–9 p.m. 

4. November 8, 2010: Belle Chasse 

Auditorium, 8398 Highway 23, Belle 

Chasse, Louisiana 70037, 6–9 p.m. 

5. December 15, 2010: West St. 

Petersburg Community Library, 6605 

5th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 

33710, 6–9 p.m. 

6. December 16, 2010: Fort Pierce 

Library, 101 Melody Lane, Fort Pierce, 

FL 34950, 5–8 p.m. 

Classification 

This action is not significant pursuant 

to Executive Order 12866. 

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

et seq. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23438 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 100622276–0307–02] 

RIN 0648–AY98 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

2011 Commercial Fishing Season and 

Adaptive Management Measures for 

the Atlantic Shark Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

establish opening dates and adjust 

quotas for the 2011 fishing season for 

sandbar sharks, non-sandbar large 

coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal 

sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks. Quotas 

will be adjusted based on the framework 

established in Amendment 2 to the 2006 

Consolidated Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan, which 

requires adjustments for any over- and/ 

or underharvests experienced during the 

2009 and 2010 Atlantic commercial 

shark fishing seasons. In addition to 

establishing opening dates and adjusting 

annual quotas, this proposed rule 

analyzes adaptive management 

measures, such as various opening dates 

for the fishing season as well as 

allowing adjustments through inseason 

actions in the allowable number of fish 

that can be taken via trip limits, to 

provide flexibility in management in 

furtherance of equitable fishing 

opportunities to the extent practicable 

for commercial shark fishermen in all 

regions and areas. The proposed 

measures could affect fishing 

opportunities for commercial shark 

fishermen in the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until October 20, 2010. NMFS 

will hold four public hearings on this 

proposed rule on September 22, 2010, in 

Silver Spring, MD; September 27, 2010, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1