[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57235-57240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23438]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 57236]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``0648-BA17'', by any 
one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Electronic submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    <bullet> Fax: 301-713-1917, Attn: Margo Schulze-Haugen.
    <bullet> 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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:
    <bullet> Establishing a fishery management unit (FMU) consisting of 
39 frequently-caught species of Atlantic sharks, separated into three 
groups for assessment and regulatory purposes (Large Coastal Sharks 
(LCS), Small Coastal Sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks);
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Prohibiting finning by requiring that the ratio between 
wet fins and dressed carcass weight at landing not exceed five percent;
    <bullet> Prohibiting the sale by recreational fishermen of sharks 
or shark products caught in the EEZ;
    <bullet> Requiring annual commercial permits for fishermen who 
harvest and sell shark products (meat products and fins); and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Reducing commercial LCS and SCS quotas;
    <bullet> Establishing ridgeback and non-ridgeback categories of 
LCS;
    <bullet> Implementing a commercial minimum size for ridgeback LCS;
    <bullet> Reducing recreational retention limits for all sharks;
    <bullet> Establishing a recreational minimum size for all sharks 
except Atlantic sharpnose;
    <bullet> Implementing limited access in commercial fisheries;
    <bullet> Establishing new procedures for counting dead discards and 
state landings of sharks after Federal fishing season closures against 
Federal quotas; and
    <bullet> Establishing season-specific over- and underharvest 
adjustment procedures.
    In 2002, additional LCS and SCS stock assessments were conducted. 
Based on these assessments, NMFS re-examined 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:
    <bullet> Aggregating the LCS;
    <bullet> Using MSY as a basis for setting commercial quotas;
    <bullet> Eliminating the commercial minimum size;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Mandatory Atlantic shark identification workshops for all 
federally permitted shark dealers to train shark dealers to properly 
identify shark carcasses; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Initiating rebuilding plans for porbeagle, dusky, and 
sandbar sharks consistent with stock assessments;
    <bullet> Implementing commercial quotas and retention limits 
consistent with stock assessment recommendations to prevent overfishing 
and rebuild overfished stocks;
    <bullet> Modifying recreational measures to reduce fishing 
mortality of overfished stocks and stocks with overfishing occurring;
    <bullet> Modifying reporting requirements;
    <bullet> Requiring that all Atlantic sharks be offloaded with fins 
naturally attached; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Implementing a rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks;
    <bullet> Implementing commercial SCS quotas consistent with stock 
assessment recommendations;
    <bullet> Taking action at the international level to end 
overfishing of shortfin mako sharks; and
    <bullet> 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 species-specific 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

[[Page 57238]]

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 re-considering 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 non-sandbar 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

[[Page 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,

[[Page 57240]]

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