2648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

taken by the activity as a whole will 

have no more than a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stock of 

marine mammal(s). 

§ 218.18 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 

218.17 for the activity identified in 

§ 218.10(c) will be renewed based upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 218.18 will be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation, or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming period of validity; 

(2) Timely receipt (by the dates 

indicated in these regulations) of the 

monitoring reports required under 

§ 218.15(b); and 

(3) A determination by the NMFS that 

the mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures required under 

§ 218.14 and the LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17, 

were undertaken and will be undertaken 

during the upcoming period of validity 

of a renewed Letter of Authorization. 

(b) If a request for a renewal of an 

LOA issued under this § 216.106 of this 

chapter and § 218.17 indicates that a 

substantial modification, as determined 

by NMFS, to the described work, 

mitigation or monitoring undertaken 

during the upcoming season will occur, 

NMFS will provide the public a period 

of 30 days for review and comment on 

the request. Review and comment on 

renewals of LOAs are restricted to: 

(1) New cited information and data 

indicating that the determinations made 

in this document are in need of 

reconsideration; and 

(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation 

and monitoring requirements contained 

in these regulations or in the current 

LOA. 

(c) A notice of issuance or denial of 

an LOA renewal will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

(d) NMFS, in response to new 

information and in consultation with 

the Navy, may modify the mitigation or 

monitoring measures in subsequent 

LOAs if doing so creates a reasonable 

likelihood of more effectively 

accomplishing the goals of mitigation 

and monitoring. Below are some of the 

possible sources of new data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation or monitoring measures: 

(1) Results from the Navy’s 

monitoring from the previous year 

(either from the JLOTS training areas or 

other locations). 

(2) Compiled results of Navy-funded 

research and development (R&D) studies 

(presented pursuant to the ICMP 

(§ 218.15(d)). 

(3) Results from specific stranding 

investigations (either from the JLOTS 

training areas or other locations, and 

involving coincident mid- or highfrequency active sonar or explosives 

training or not involving coincident 

use). 

(4) Results from the Long Term 

Prospective Study. 

(5) Results from general marine 

mammal and sound research (funded by 

the Navy (or otherwise). 

§ 218.19 Modifications to Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantive 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to the LOA by NMFS, 

issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this 

chapter and 218.17 and subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall be made 

until after notification and an 

opportunity for public comment has 

been provided. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a renewal of an LOA under 

§ 218.18, without modification (except 

for the period of validity), is not 

considered a substantive modification. 

(b) If the Assistant Administrator 

determines that an emergency exists 

that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine 

mammals specified in § 218.12(c), an 

LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of 

this chapter and 218.17 may be 

substantively modified without prior 

notification and an opportunity for 

public comment. Notification will be 

published in the Federal Register 

within 30 days subsequent to the action. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00558 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 100825390–5012–02] 

RIN 0648–BA17 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Large Coastal and Small Coastal 

Atlantic Shark Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement Draft Amendment 6 to the 

2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP). Management measures in 

this proposed rulemaking are designed 

to respond to the problems facing 

Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, 

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. The primary 

goal of Amendment 6 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 6) 

is to implement management measures 

for the Atlantic shark fisheries that will 

achieve the objectives of increasing 

management flexibility to adapt to the 

changing needs of the Atlantic shark 

fisheries, and achieve optimum yield 

while rebuilding overfished shark stocks 

and ending overfishing. Specifically, 

this action proposes: Adjusting the large 

coastal sharks (LCS) retention limit for 

shark directed Limited Access Permit 

(LAP) holders; creating sub-regional 

quotas in the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico regions for LCS and small 

coastal sharks (SCS); modifying the LCS 

and SCS quota linkages; establishing 

total allowable catches (TACs) and 

adjusting quotas for non-blacknose SCS 

in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

regions based on the results of the 2013 

stock assessments for Atlantic 

sharpnose and bonnethead sharks; and 

modifying upgrading restrictions for 

shark permit holders. The proposed 

measures could affect commercial shark 

fishermen fishing in the Atlantic Ocean 

including the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean Sea. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 3, 2015. 

NMFS will hold 4 public hearings on 

Draft Amendment 6 and this 

implementing proposed rule on 

February 17, February 18, February 23, 

and February 26, 2015. NMFS will also 

hold an operator-assisted public hearing 

via conference call and webinar for this 

proposed rule on March 25, 2015, from 

2 p.m. to 4 p.m. For specific locations, 

dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2010–0188, by any one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2010- 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2649 

0188, click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Margo Schulze-Haugen, NMFS/SF1, 

1315 East West Highway, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: Please include the 

identifier NOAA–NMFS–2010–0188 

when submitting comments. Comments 

sent by any other method, to any other 

address or individual, or received after 

the close of the comment period, may 

not be considered by NMFS. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and generally will be 

posted for public viewing on 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

NMFS will hold 4 public hearings and 

1 conference call on this proposed rule. 

NMFS will hold public hearings in St. 

Petersburg, FL; Melbourne, FL; Belle 

Chasse, FL; and Manteo, NC; and via a 

public conference call. For specific 

locations, dates and times see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Copies of the supporting documents, 

including the draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 

2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP 

are available from the HMS Web site at 

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

by contacting LeAnn Hogan at 301–427– 

8503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LeAnn Hogan, Guy ́ DuBeck, Alexis 

Jackson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by 

phone: 301–427–8503, or by fax: 301– 

713–1917. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

sharks are managed under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the 

authority to issue regulations has been 

delegated from the Secretary to the 

Assistant Administrator (AA) for 

Fisheries, NOAA. On October 2, 2006, 

NMFS published in the Federal Register 

(71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective 

November 1, 2006, implementing the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which 

details management measures for 

Atlantic HMS fisheries. The 

implementing regulations for the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments are at 50 CFR part 635. 

This proposed rule addresses 

implementation of Amendment 6. 

NMFS began considering management 

measures for Amendment 6 in 2010 

with the publication of an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

(75 FR 57235; September 10, 2010). The 

2010 ANPR solicited public comments 

on potential adjustments to regulations 

governing the Atlantic shark fisheries to 

address several specific issues affecting 

the management of those fisheries. In 

the ANPR, NMFS discussed that since 

management of sharks began in 1993, 

there have been many changes to the 

regulations and major rules, either 

through FMP amendments or regulatory 

amendments, to respond to results of 

stock assessments, changes in stock 

status, and other fishery fluctuations. 

Despite modifications to the regulations 

and Amendments to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP to respond to 

these issues, the Atlantic shark fisheries 

continue 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 

continuing to react to these issues every 

year with a new regulation, or every 

other year with a new FMP amendment, 

NMFS stated that it wanted the 

regulations to be more proactive in 

management and explore methods to 

establish more flexible regulations that 

would consider the changing needs of 

the fisheries. More specifically, the 

ANPR explored management ideas 

related to quota structure, permit 

structure, and catch shares. NMFS held 

several public meetings regarding the 

ANPR and received many comments. 

Based on the comments received on 

the ANPR, on September 16, 2011, 

NMFS published a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) (76 FR 57709) to prepare an FMP 

Amendment that would consider catch 

shares for the Atlantic shark fisheries. 

The NOI also established a control date 

for eligibility to participate in a catch 

share program and announced the 

availability of a white paper that 

explored potential design elements of a 

shark catch share program. NMFS held 

several public meetings and received 

many comments regarding the NOI. 

In addition to the changes in Federal 

regulations, while NMFS has been 

considering comments on the ANPR and 

the NOI, there have also been changes 

in state shark management. Since 2010, 

several states have passed legislation 

banning the possession, sale, trade, and 

distribution of shark fins. In addition, 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC) recently made 

changes to the Atlantic state shark 

management measures. The ASMFC 

Coastal Shark Board made the decision 

to amend the Interstate Coastal Shark 

FMP to be consistent with NMFS’ recent 

changes in Amendment 5a, and they 

have expressed their preference for 

NMFS to open the LCS management 

group in the Atlantic region after July 1 

each year. The Shark Board also 

approved measures for each Atlantic 

state to implement a 12 percent fin-tocarcass ratio for smooth dogfish, 

consistent with the 12 percent fin-tocarcass ratio specified in the smooth 

dogfish-specific provisions of the Shark 

Conservation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–348) 

(the SCA). 

In addition to these state measures, 

there have been international efforts to 

prohibit shark finning at sea, as well as 

campaigns targeted at the shark fin soup 

markets. All of these efforts, including 

the U.S. state shark fin possession bans, 

have impacted the market and demand 

for shark fins. In addition, NMFS has 

seen a steady decline in ex-vessel prices 

for shark fins in all regions since 2010. 

In April 2014, NMFS released a 

Predraft for Amendment 6, providing 

NMFS with the opportunity to obtain 

additional information and input from 

HMS Advisory Panel (AP) members and 

HMS Consulting Parties (Atlantic, Gulf, 

and Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, Marine Fisheries 

Commissions, U.S. Coast Guard, and 

other State and Federal Agency 

representatives) on potential 

alternatives prior to development of the 

formal FMP Amendment and proposed 

rule. The Predraft explored potential 

management options for the future 

management of the Atlantic shark 

fisheries, taking into consideration 

comments received on the ANPR and 

NOI. 

Since issuing the ANPR, NOI, and 

Predraft, and after reviewing the 

comments received, NMFS has 

continued to consider various ways to 

address recurring issues and provide 

managers and fishermen with increased 

flexibility, while maintaining 

conservation measures. Additionally, 

there have continued to be changes in 

Federal and state management of the 

Atlantic shark fisheries that have 

affected the fishery and its 

communities. On May, 27 2014, NMFS 

published another NOI announcing (1) 

its intent to prepare an Environmental 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Assessment (EA) instead of an 

Environmental Impact Statement, and 

(2) that the agency is moving away from 

the catch share concept for this 

particular Amendment. Thus, the public 

should largely be aware of the change in 

approach. Most recently, NMFS 

published a proposed rule (79 FR 46217; 

August 7, 2014) to implement draft 

Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP (Amendment 9), which 

considers management measures in the 

smoothhound and shark fisheries. 

Regulations proposed in this action 

would overlap and modify some 

regulations proposed in Amendment 9. 

Atlantic Sharpnose and Bonnethead 

Sharks Stock Assessment 

Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead 

sharks were both previously assessed in 

2007 as part of the Southeast Data, 

Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 

process. At that time, the statuses of 

both species were determined to be not 

overfished, with no overfishing 

occurring. These species were assessed 

again in 2013 using ‘‘standard’’ 

assessments as part of SEDAR 34. 

Standard assessments generally update 

previous benchmark assessments with 

additional years of data and do not 

allow for major changes; standard 

assessments typically can be completed 

in approximately a year. On the first day 

of the face-to-face assessment workshop 

meeting held for both species, the 

scientists determined that the genetic 

information clearly indicated both 

species should be split into a Gulf of 

Mexico stock and an Atlantic stock. 

However, because the assessments had 

been scheduled as standard assessments 

as opposed to benchmark assessments, 

the assessment process and timing 

would not allow the scientists to make 

this change. Making such a change 

would have required four benchmark 

assessments rather than two standard 

assessments. It would have also 

required additional changes to the 

format and structure of the data that had 

not been anticipated and allowed for in 

the overall SEDAR schedule. Based on 

a request from fishery managers to 

continue with the standard assessments 

at that time, given that the previous 

assessments were over 5 years old and 

updated scientific advice was needed, 

the scientists agreed to continue with 

the standard assessment of both species 

as single stocks in order to provide 

management advice on the potential 

status of the stocks. 

Based on the results of SEDAR 34, 

NMFS decided to split the Atlantic 

sharpnose shark species into two 

stocks—an Atlantic stock and a Gulf of 

Mexico stock—and determined, based 

on the overall data for the species as a 

whole, that the status of both stocks is 

not overfished and no overfishing is 

occurring (79 FR 53024; September 5, 

2014). With regards to bonnethead 

sharks, NMFS also decided to split this 

stock into an Atlantic stock and a Gulf 

of Mexico stock, and determined, based 

on the overall data for the species as a 

whole, that the status of both 

bonnethead stocks is unknown (Id.). In 

this rulemaking, NMFS considers 

implementing total allowable catches 

(TAC) and commercial quotas for nonblacknose SCS (which is the 

management group that both Atlantic 

sharpnose and bonnethead sharks are 

managed in) in the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico regions based on the results of 

the SEDAR 34 assessment and while 

considering the results of the 2007 

finetooth stock assessment. 

NMFS prepared a draft EA, RIR, and 

IRFA to present and analyze anticipated 

environmental, social, and economic 

impacts of each alternative contained in 

this proposed rule. A summary of the 

alternatives considered and related 

analyses are provided below. The 

complete list of alternatives and related 

analyses are provided in the draft EA/ 

RIR/IRFA. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/ 

IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

Permit Stacking for Shark Directed LAP 

Holders 

NMFS considered permit stacking in 

the 2010 ANPR and requested public 

comments on this potential change to 

the shark permit structure. A permit 

stacking system would allow 

commercial fishermen with multiple 

shark LAPs to use them concurrently on 

one vessel, resulting in aggregated, and 

thus higher, retention limits. 

After analyzing the ecological and 

socioeconomic impacts of the permit 

stacking alternatives in the shark 

fishery, NMFS currently prefers the No 

Action alternative (Alternative A1) in 

this proposed rule. The No Action 

alterative would maintain the current 

shark directed LAP structure and would 

not implement permit stacking for these 

permit holders. Under this preferred 

alternative, NMFS would continue to 

allow only one directed LAP per vessel 

and thus one retention limit. In the 

short- and long-term, this preferred 

alternative is expected to have neutral 

direct ecological impacts on LCS stocks. 

Shark fishermen would continue to be 

limited by the current retention limit of 

36 LCS per trip. By leaving the current 

permit structure in place under this 

alternative, and because the LCS quotas 

are not being modified in this action, it 

is likely that the No Action alternative 

would have neutral short- and long-term 

ecological impacts to the LCS stocks. 

With regards to socioeconomic impacts, 

the preferred alternative would result in 

potential trip revenues of $1,166 (1,224 

lb of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel, 

assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for 

meat and $6.05 for fins. Because current 

LCS quotas are being maintained, NMFS 

anticipates neutral direct socioeconomic 

impacts in the short-term and possibly 

minor adverse socioeconomic impacts 

in the long-term, because if fishermen 

are unable to retain an increased 

number of LCS per trip by stacking 

permits, the profitability of each trip 

could decline over time, due to 

declining prices for shark products and 

increasing prices for gas, bait and other 

associated costs. NMFS believes that 

while permit stacking may have 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts for 

those fishermen that already have 

multiple directed shark LAPs or that 

could afford to buy additional permits, 

permit stacking could possibly 

disadvantage those fishermen that are 

unable to buy additional permits. 

Because the majority of fishermen in the 

shark fishery have only one permit (in 

the Atlantic region, 130 of the 136 shark 

directed permits have different owners; 

in the Gulf of Mexico region, 73 of the 

83 shark directed permits have different 

owners), permit stacking would not 

benefit most shark fishermen in the 

short-term, and it could possibly lead to 

inequity among directed shark LAP 

holders. NMFS believes that an increase 

in LCS retention limits for all directed 

LAP holders, as described in the 

Commercial Retention Limits section 

below, would have greater 

socioeconomic benefits across the entire 

shark fishery as a whole. Therefore, after 

considering the impacts of the permit 

stacking alternatives, NMFS prefers the 

No Action alternative to continue to 

allow only one directed LAP per vessel 

and thus one retention limit in this 

proposed rulemaking. 

NMFS also analyzed two other permit 

stacking alternatives in the Draft EA. 

The first, Alternative A2, would allow 

fishermen to use a maximum of 2 shark 

directed LAPs concurrently on one 

vessel, which would result in 

aggregated, and thus higher, retention 

limits. Under the current LCS retention 

limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that 

a vessel with 2 stacked permits would 

have a LCS retention limit of 72 LCS per 

trip. Alternative A3 considers allowing 

fishermen to use a maximum of 3 shark 

directed LAPs concurrently on one 

vessel, which would result in 

aggregated, and thus higher, retention 

limits. Under the current LCS retention 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2651 

limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that 

a vessel with 3 stacked LAPs would 

have a LCS retention limit of 108 LCS 

per trip. While these alternatives could 

result in increased annual revenues for 

shark directed LAP holders who 

currently own or could buy multiple 

LAPs, they are not preferred at this time 

because they could possibly lead to 

inequity among directed shark LAP 

holders. These alternatives would have 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts only 

for those shark fishermen that can afford 

to buy multiple shark permits, and thus 

would benefit from a higher retention 

limit and higher revenues, whereas 

those shark fishermen that cannot afford 

to buy a second or third directed shark 

permit would be at a disadvantage, 

unable to economically benefit from the 

higher retention limits. Given the way 

directed LAPs are currently held within 

the shark fishery, NMFS believes that an 

increase in LCS retention limits for all 

directed LAP holders, as described in 

the Commercial Retention Limits 

section below, would have greater 

socioeconomic benefits across the entire 

directed shark fishery as a whole. 

Therefore, after considering the impacts 

of the permit stacking alternatives, 

NMFS prefers the No Action alternative 

to continue to allow only one directed 

LAP per vessel and thus one retention 

limit in this proposed rulemaking. 

Adjusting Commercial Retention Limits 

for Atlantic Shark Fisheries 

The current retention limit of 36 LCS 

other than sandbar sharks was 

established in Amendment 2 as part of 

the rebuilding plan for sandbar sharks. 

As described in Amendment 2, the 

retention limit was established by 

considering, among other things, how 

many sandbar sharks would be 

discarded dead from the number of 

shark trips that were expected to 

interact with sandbar sharks. Over the 

past few years, the shark research 

fishery, which is the only part of the 

shark fisheries that can land and sell 

sandbar sharks, has not been catching 

the full sandbar research fishery quota. 

During the Predraft stage, NMFS 

received extensive comments from 

commercial fishermen and Atlantic 

HMS Advisory Panel members to 

consider adjusting the retention limits 

instead of allowing commercial 

fishermen to land sandbar sharks 

outside of the Atlantic shark research 

fishery. Thus, NMFS is considering 

adjusting the commercial LCS retention 

limit for shark directed LAP holders 

based on public comment. 

The preferred alternative (Alternative 

B2) would increase the retention limit 

for LCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico regions from 36 to a maximum 

of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per 

trip and reduce the sandbar shark 

research fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw 

(166,826 lb dw). To determine the 

impacts of this alternative, NMFS used 

the same methodology used in 

Amendment 2 to calculate how many 

sandbar sharks could potentially be 

discarded dead by vessels harvesting the 

55 LCS other than sandbar shark 

retention limit. Because harvesting 

additional LCS per trip could result in 

additional sandbar sharks being 

discarded dead, this additional 

mortality would be counted against the 

unharvested sandbar shark research 

fishery quota, and NMFS would reduce 

the sandbar shark research fishery quota 

accordingly. Thus overall, NMFS does 

not expect the mortality of sandbar 

sharks to increase as a result of the 

increased retention limit under this 

alternative. Since the sandbar shark 

research fishery quota was previously 

analyzed in Amendment 2, and would 

be reduced from 116.6 to 75.7 mt dw in 

order to account for increased discards 

under a retention limit of 55 LCS per 

trip, this alternative would have shortand long-term neutral ecological 

impacts on sandbar sharks. In addition, 

the retention limit increase under this 

preferred alternative would result in 

neutral direct and indirect ecological 

impacts to the different LCS 

management groups and species, 

because the quotas for the different LCS 

management groups and species are not 

being modified in this rulemaking and 

fishermen would continue to be limited 

by the total amount of LCS that could 

be harvested, as well as by seasonal 

closures once 80 percent of the quota is 

reached. 

With regards to socioeconomic 

impacts, this new retention limit would 

result in potential total trip revenues of 

$1,781 (1,870 lb of meat, 94 lb of fins), 

assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for 

meat and $6.05 for fins. The preferred 

alternative would have short- and longterm direct and indirect minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts since 

shark directed permit holders could 

land more sharks per trip when 

compared to the current retention limit 

of 36 LCS per trip. The higher retention 

limit is likely to make each trip more 

profitable for fishermen, as well as more 

efficient, if they decide to take fewer 

trips, and in turn save money on fuel, 

bait, and other associated costs. 

NMFS also analyzed three other 

retention limit alternatives that are not 

preferred at this time. The No Action 

alternative (Alternative B1) would 

maintain the current commercial LCS 

retention limit for directed permit 

holders. While this would have shortand long-term neutral ecological 

impacts on LCS fisheries, this option 

denies commercial shark fishermen 

additional opportunities to harvest LCS 

within their current quotas. Due to 

limited resources available to fund 

observed trips, the sandbar quota in the 

research fishery has not been fully 

harvested in recent years (e.g., 35 

percent of the available sandbar shark 

quota was landed in 2012). As such, 

NMFS believes that it is appropriate to 

reconsider the LCS retention limit to 

ensure commercial fishermen have an 

opportunity to harvest the available 

various LCS management group quotas 

in an efficient manner. Another 

alternative, Alternative B3, would 

increase the LCS retention limit to a 

maximum of 72 LCS other than sandbar 

sharks per trip and reduce the Atlantic 

shark research fishery quota to 63.0 mt 

dw (138,937 lb dw) for sandbar sharks. 

The increased retention limit to 72 LCS 

other than sandbar sharks per trip could 

result in 2,448 lb dw of LCS per trip. 

While increasing the retention limit 

could result in more efficient and 

profitable shark directed trips, this 

increased retention limit is closer to the 

historical retention limit of 4,000 lb dw 

and could cause fishermen to re-enter 

the fishery because of the higher 

retention limit. If this occurs, these 

fishermen may not have fished under 

the non-sandbar LCS regulations and 

might not be able to avoid catching 

sandbar sharks while fishing for the 

other LCS species, which could lead to 

increased discards and potential adverse 

impacts to sandbar sharks. Also, if 

fishermen increase the number of hooks 

per set substantially in order to catch 

the increased retention limit, they may 

discard additional dead sharks as a 

result. This is more likely under this 

alternative than under Alternative B2, 

given the larger difference in retention 

limits, but, as would also be the case for 

Alternative B2, it would likely only 

happen in the short term as fishermen 

modify their fishing practices to the 

adjusted retention limit. Under 

Alternative B3, the new sandbar shark 

quota could result in average annual lost 

revenue of $112,508 for those fishermen 

participating in the shark research 

fishery, but the income could be 

recouped by the increased retention 

limit outside the shark research fishery. 

Finally, the last alternative B4, 

considered increasing the LCS retention 

limit to a maximum of 108 LCS other 

than sandbar sharks per trip and 

reducing the Atlantic shark research 

fishery quota to 36.2 mt dw (79,878 lb 

dw) for sandbar sharks. This alternative 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

would allow shark directed permit 

holders to retain three times as many 

LCS per trip as the current retention 

limit. This retention limit would result 

in potential trip revenues of $3,498 

(3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of fins) per 

vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of 

$0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins, which 

is an increase of $2,332 per vessel per 

trip compared to the status quo 

alternative. While a retention limit of 

108 LCS per trip would make each trip 

more profitable and potentially require 

fishermen to take fewer trips per year, 

this large increase in the retention limit 

could cause a lot more permit holders 

to become active, as described above. 

Thus, the profit of individual vessels 

could decrease because LCS quotas 

could be caught at a faster rate, and the 

fishing season could be shortened. 

Additionally, in order to increase the 

retention limit to 108 LCS per trip, the 

sandbar shark research quota would 

need to be reduced to an amount below 

what is currently being landed in the 

shark research fishery, thereby reducing 

the ability to carry out research for stock 

assessments and having adverse impacts 

on fishermen in the shark research 

fishery, who would lose quota, and thus 

revenue. As such, NMFS does not prefer 

this alternative. 

Atlantic Regional and Sub-Regional 

Quotas 

Currently, NMFS manages several 

shark species and management group 

quotas on a regional basis with quota 

linkages in the Atlantic region. NMFS is 

proposing to implement sub-regional 

quotas for aggregated LCS, hammerhead 

sharks, blacknose sharks, and nonblacknose SCS management groups in 

the Atlantic region. Implementing subregional quotas would help alleviate 

some of the tensions between fishermen 

in certain states due to varying 

preferences for season opening dates 

and differences in regional shark 

availability. Additionally, sub-regional 

quotas could facilitate greater fishing 

accountability for these shark 

management groups within sub-regions, 

and also provide for extended fishing 

seasons in some sub-regions. In order to 

implement sub-regional quotas in the 

Atlantic region, NMFS is considering a 

number of measures, such as 

apportioning landings to sub-regions 

based on historical landings, adjusting 

linkages between certain management 

groups within sub-regions, and 

establishing commercial quotas and 

TACs for non-blacknose SCS based on 

results of the recent stock assessment, 

SEDAR 34. 

NMFS considered several factors 

when calculating sub-regional quotas. It 

is important to consider the potential 

impact of early seasonal closures on 

historical landings by region over time. 

For example, the non-blacknose SCS 

and blacknose fisheries closed on 

November 2, 2010, September 30, 2013, 

and July 28, 2014, thereby reducing 

fishing opportunities for fishermen in 

the northern Atlantic area in those 

years, because sharks tend to be more 

available later in the year in the 

northern Atlantic area, whereas they 

tend to be available year-round in the 

southern Atlantic area. Conversely, in 

years where NMFS established opening 

dates later in the year (e.g., July 15 

opening date for Aggregated LCS in 

2010 through 2012), fishermen in the 

southern Atlantic area may have 

reduced fishing opportunities. During 

the Predraft stage and at the September 

2014 HMS AP meeting, some 

constituents also expressed concerns 

about how regional differences in how 

shark carcasses are dressed may impact 

the magnitude of shark landings 

reported in the Atlantic Coastal 

Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), 

and thus the amount of quota that may 

be allocated to each sub-region. ACCSP 

dealer reports indicate differences in 

how fishermen land sharks. Dealers in 

some states report dressed sharks with 

carcass gutted, head on, and tail on, 

while others report dressed sharks with 

carcass gutted, head off, and tails off 

(i.e., shark cores). However, observer 

data and port agents indicate that sharks 

are landed with their heads off 

regardless of region. Additionally, 

dealers cannot indicate ‘‘heads on’’ in 

electronic dealer reporting forms. 

Because observer observations suggest 

that sharks are landed with ‘‘heads off,’’ 

and since all types of dressed shark 

carcasses are included in landings that 

are counted towards the commercial 

quotas, NMFS has not adjusted landings 

estimates to account for differences in 

dressed weight for the sub-regional 

quota calculations. Finally, at the 

September 2014 HMS AP meeting, AP 

members expressed concern about using 

latitude and longitude lines associated 

with the federal fishing catch areas to 

define sub-regions in the Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico, instead of the state line 

between North Carolina and South 

Carolina in the Atlantic and the state 

line between Mississippi and Alabama 

in the Gulf of Mexico because fishermen 

in each state wanted to ensure that all 

their historical landings would 

ultimately contribute to their allotted 

sub-regional quota. However, after 

taking into consideration the HMS AP’s 

comments, NMFS is considering using 

the latitude and longitude lines 

associated with fishing catch areas 

rather than state lines. Using the fishing 

catch area lines (i.e., latitude and 

longitude lines) would provide for more 

effective monitoring of quotas and more 

accurate reporting, as fishermen are 

currently required to report landings by 

catch area. NMFS has also determined 

that there would be minimal differences 

(0–1.9%) in the allocation of quota to 

each sub-region whether using state 

lines versus latitude and longitude 

lines. 

Due to the variability in the 

aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark 

fisheries between 2008 and 2013, and 

various impacts of seasonal closures and 

changes to regulations and fishery 

management groups that did not impact 

one region more than another, NMFS 

calculated the sub-regional quotas based 

on total landings during this time 

period. 

Unlike the calculations for aggregated 

LCS and hammerhead sharks, the data 

used to calculate non-blacknose SCS 

and blacknose shark quotas would start 

after 2010 because SCS fisheries 

management changed in 2010 under 

Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, in which NMFS created a 

separate blacknose shark quota and 

linked the quota to the non-blacknose 

SCS quota. NMFS used ACCSP landings 

data from 2011 and 2012 to calculate 

SCS sub-regional quotas in Alternatives 

C2, C3 and C4. These years were used 

because they are years where the SCS 

fisheries were open year-round and subregional allocations would not be 

impacted by early closures; this 

approach was supported by some 

members of the HMS AP at the 

September 2014 meeting. 

The two preferred alternatives are 

Alternatives C4 and C6. Alternative C4 

would apportion the base annual quotas 

for the Atlantic LCS and SCS 

management groups into northern and 

southern sub-regional quotas, with the 

boundary between the northern and 

southern Atlantic sub-regions drawn 

along 34°00′ N. Latitude, based on 

historical landings percentages. The 

preferred alternative would also 

maintain the non-blacknose SCS and 

blacknose quota linkages in the 

southern Atlantic sub-region, eliminate 

the linkage between blacknose and nonblacknose SCS in the northern Atlantic 

sub-region, and prohibit the harvest and 

landings of blacknose sharks in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region. The 

preferred alternatives do not consider 

removing linkages between all 

remaining species and management 

groups for several reasons. Removing 

linkages between these management 

groups would require an adjustment in 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2653 

quotas in order to account for potential 

interactions and mortalities, and could 

result in an increase in regulatory 

discards. Additionally, there are specific 

reasons for maintaining linkages, as 

described in the FMP amendments that 

established them. For example, as 

described in Amendment 5a, the link 

between the aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark management groups 

was established to end overfishing and 

rebuild overfished stocks. To date, the 

closure of these management groups in 

the Atlantic region has been the result 

of harvesting the aggregated LCS quota. 

As described in Amendment 3 and 5a 

for the link between non-blacknose SCS 

and blacknose sharks, the linking of 

quotas of species that are often caught 

together on the same set or trip can 

prevent incidental catch of sharks in a 

closed fishery as bycatch in other 

directed shark fisheries, possibly 

resulting in mortality and negating some 

of the conservation benefit of quota 

closures. The non-blacknose SCS quota 

preferred under this alternative would 

be split into northern and southern subregional quotas based on landings 

percentages, as described under 

Alternative C4 in the Draft EA. Subregional quotas for the preferred 

alternatives, based on percentages of 

landings apportioned to each subregion, are outlined for Atlantic LCS 

and SCS in Figure 1. In addition, any 

overharvest of the overall regional base 

quota would be accounted for in the 

next fishing season and would affect the 

sub-region(s) that caused the 

overharvest. For example, if a northern 

sub-region quota was overharvested and 

that caused the overall regional base 

quota to be exceeded, then the amount 

overharvested by the northern subregion would be deducted from the 

northern sub-region’s base quota and 

not the southern sub-region’s base 

quota, the following fishing season. 

However, if a sub-region’s quota is 

overharvested but the overall regional 

quota is not exceeded, then no 

overharvest would be deducted from 

either sub-region the following fishing 

season. In regards to underharvest of the 

overall regional base quota, if the 

species or all species in a management 

group is not declared to be overfished, 

to have overfishing occurring, or to have 

an unknown status, NMFS may increase 

the following year’s base annual quota, 

including regional quota, by an 

equivalent amount of the underharvest 

up to 50 percent above the base annual 

quota. For example, if the northern subregion’s base quota is underharvested 

and the southern sub-region’s base 

quota is fully harvested, in the following 

year the amount underharvested by the 

northern sub-region would be equally 

distributed between the sub-regions and 

added to the northern and southern subregion’s base quotas. If there is 

underharvest of the overall regional base 

quota and a species’ status is unknown, 

overfished, or overfishing is occurring, 

NMFS would not carry over the 

underharvest to the following year’s 

base annual quota. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Preferred Alternative C4 would likely 

result in direct and indirect short- and 

long-term neutral ecological impacts 

across the Atlantic region. The preferred 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP20JA15.000</GPH>
2654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

sub-regional quotas would have no 

impact on the current level of fishing 

pressure, catch rates or distribution of 

fishing effort, but instead represent an 

administrative change in how quotas are 

monitored throughout the Atlantic 

region. Because sub-regional quotas are 

estimated from historical landings, and 

thus based on typical fishing activity 

within sub-regions, there would be no 

expected ecological differences in how 

fishermen from the various Atlantic 

states interact with LCS and SCS. 

Differences between sub-regions in 

whether linkages were maintained, 

however, would have varying ecological 

impacts. In the northern Atlantic subregion, due to difficulties associated 

with managing a small quota of 0.8 mt 

dw, harvest of blacknose sharks would 

be prohibited. Prohibiting harvest of 

blacknose in the northern Atlantic subregion, would reduce the likelihood of 

overharvesting blacknose sharks by 

quickly exceeding the quota, and 

eliminate the need to monitor a small 

quota. However, in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region, no changes would 

be made in the existing quota linkages 

between blacknose and non-blacknose 

SCS, so, neutral ecological impacts on 

SCS would be expected, since current 

conditions would be maintained. 

Across the entire Atlantic region, 

preferred alternative C4 would likely 

result in both direct short- and longterm moderate beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts. Removing quota linkages in the 

northern Atlantic region, in 

combination with apportioning the 

Atlantic regional quota at 34°00′ N. Lat., 

would allow fishermen to maximize 

their fishing effort, and thereby 

maximize revenue, during periods when 

sharks migrate into local waters or when 

regional time/area closures are not in 

place. Removing quota linkages within 

the northern Atlantic sub-region would 

have beneficial impacts, as increased 

revenues from increased landings would 

continue to accrue with each fishing 

year. Active fishermen in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would be able to 

continue fishing for non-blacknose SCS 

without the fishing activities in the 

southern Atlantic sub-region, where the 

majority of blacknose sharks are landed, 

impacting the timing of the nonblacknose SCS fishery closure. 

Economic advantages associated with 

removing quota linkages, allowing the 

northern Atlantic sub-region to land a 

larger number of non-blacknose SCS, 

would outweigh the income lost from 

prohibiting landings of blacknose sharks 

($1,750). 

The other preferred alternative, 

Alternative C6, would establish an 

Atlantic non-blacknose SCS TAC of 

401.3 mt dw and maintain the 2014 base 

annual commercial quota of 176.1 mt 

dw (388,222 lb dw). For this alternative, 

NMFS used the current Atlantic nonblacknose SCS commercial base annual 

quota of 176.1 mt dw to determine the 

new Atlantic TAC for this management 

group. The proposed TAC is calculated 

by summing the sources of mortality for 

Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and 

finetooth sharks (recreational landings, 

commercial discards, which includes 

estimates of shrimp trawl discards, and 

research set-aside mortality) from the 

Atlantic region and adding the current 

commercial base annual quota (176.1 mt 

dw). The proposed Atlantic nonblacknose SCS TAC and commercial 

quota takes into account all sources of 

mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, 

bonnethead, and finetooth sharks and 

maintains the 2014 commercial base 

annual quota. In addition, no 

underharvest of the non-blacknose SCS 

quota in the Atlantic region would be 

carried forward to the next fishing 

season because the status of the 

bonnethead shark stock within the nonblacknose SCS management group is 

‘‘unknown’’. Thus, because this nonblacknose SCS TAC and commercial 

quota takes into account all sources of 

mortality for both species, keeps fishing 

mortality capped at current levels, does 

not increase interactions with blacknose 

sharks, and accounts for the unknown 

status of Atlantic bonnethead sharks, 

NMFS believes that Alternative C6 

would have direct and indirect shortand long-term neutral ecological 

impacts to the Atlantic non-blacknose 

SCS. 

With regards to socioeconomic 

impacts of preferred Alternative C6, 

because this alternative would maintain 

the non-blacknose SCS commercial 

quota, it is likely to have short-term 

neutral socioeconomic impacts. Recent 

non-blacknose SCS landings have been 

below 176.1, thus, this commercial 

quota could allow for increased 

landings and additional revenue if the 

entire quota is caught, which could have 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts. 

However, since the proposed 

commercial quota of 176.1 mt dw would 

not be adjusted for underharvests due to 

the unknown status of bonnethead 

sharks, the fishermen participating in 

this fishery would be capped at a lower 

quota than is possible in the current 

non-blacknose SCS fisheries if there is 

underharvest, potentially leading to 

long-term minor adverse socioeconomic 

impacts. NMFS does not expect fishing 

effort to dramatically increase for nonblacknose SCS in the southern region of 

the Atlantic, since this fishery would 

continue to be limited by blacknose 

shark landings and the linkage between 

these two groups. Preferred Alternative 

C6 would maintain fishing mortality at 

current levels and would not have 

unnecessary adverse socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Cumulatively, Alternatives C4 and C6 

would have positive impacts on the 

current state of shark fisheries in the 

Atlantic Region. Implementing the 

northern and southern sub-regional 

quotas proposed in Alternative C4 

would allow fishermen to maximize 

their fishing effort during periods when 

sharks migrate into local waters or when 

regional time/area closures are not in 

effect. Additionally, Alternative C4 

would provide increased flexibility in 

the application of shark management 

measures throughout the Atlantic 

region, without having any adverse 

economic or ecological consequences. 

The non-blacknose SCS commercial 

quota under preferred Alternative C6 

would continue to allow fishermen to 

land these species at current levels, 

while maintaining the Atlantic 

sharpnose and bonnethead stocks at 

sustainable levels. It more accurately 

reflects the status of Atlantic sharpnose 

and bonnethead sharks and considers 

the sources of mortality for all three 

non-blacknose SCS. Therefore, because 

of the neutral ecological impacts 

expected to shark species as well as 

non-target, incidental species and 

bycatch, and the moderately beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts expected by 

these combined measures, NMFS 

prefers these alternatives at this time. 

NMFS also analyzed five other 

alternatives related to Atlantic subregional quotas that are not preferred at 

this time. Alternative C1, the No Action 

alternative, would not change the 

current commercial quota management 

in the Atlantic shark fisheries. 

Alternative C2 would apportion the 

Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and 

SCS along 33°00′ N. Latitude 

(approximately at Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina) into northern and southern 

sub-regional quotas, while maintaining 

all current quota linkages. Alternative 

C3 would apportion the Atlantic 

regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 

34°00′ N. Latitude (approximately at 

Wilmington, North Carolina) into 

northern and southern sub-regional 

quotas, while maintaining all current 

quota linkages. Alternative C5 would 

establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 

177.3 mt dw and reduce the nonblacknose SCS commercial quota to 128 

mt dw (282,238 lb dw), based on the 

results of the 2013 assessment for 

bonnethead sharks. Alternative C7 

would establish a non-blacknose SCS 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2655 

TAC of 489.3 mt dw and increase the 

commercial quota to 264.1 mt dw 

(582,333 lb dw), which is equal to the 

2014 adjusted non-blacknose SCS quota. 

While some of these alternatives share 

some similar components with the 

preferred alternatives, NMFS does not 

prefer the remaining alternatives at this 

time for a variety of reasons. Alternative 

C1, the status quo alternative, does not 

address some of the issues facing the 

Atlantic shark fisheries and the current 

purpose of Amendment 6 to increase 

flexibility for shark fishermen. While 

neutral ecological impacts on Atlantic 

shark species and non-target species are 

anticipated from Alternatives C2 and 

C3, they do not take into consideration 

quota linkages between non-blacknose 

SCS and blacknose sharks. Under 

Alternative C5, the non-blacknose SCS 

TAC and commercial quota are limited 

by the results of the bonnethead shark 

stock assessment and do not take the 

results of the Atlantic sharpnose stock 

assessment or the status of finetooth 

sharks into account. Finally, Alternative 

C7 would cap the non-blacknose SCS 

commercial quota at a higher level than 

Alternative C6 and does not account for 

the uncertainties in the SEDAR 34 

bonnethead stock assessment. 

Gulf of Mexico Regional and SubRegional Quotas 

Similar to management measures 

considered in the Atlantic region, NMFS 

is also considering implementing subregional quotas for shark management 

groups in the Gulf of Mexico region. The 

two preferred alternatives are 

Alternative D4 and D6. Alternative D4 

would apportion the base annual 

commercial quotas for the Gulf of 

Mexico LCS management groups into 

eastern and western sub-regional quotas 

along 89°00′ W Longitude, based on 

historical landings percentages (see 

Discussion in section 2.4 of Draft EA). 

It would also maintain the linkage 

between aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf 

of Mexico sub-region, eliminate the 

linkage between aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf 

of Mexico sub-region, and prohibit the 

harvest and landings of hammerhead 

sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico 

sub-region. NMFS would maintain 

linkages between the remaining 

management groups. Removing linkages 

between the additional management 

groups would require an adjustment in 

quotas in order to account for potential 

interactions and mortalities, and could 

result in an increase in regulatory 

discards. The western sub-regional 

quota for hammerhead sharks would be 

0 mt dw. Sub-regional quotas for LCS, 

based on percentages of landings 

apportioned to each sub-region, are 

outlined for the Gulf of Mexico LCS in 

Figure 2. As described above in the 

Atlantic regional and sub-regional 

quotas section, any overharvest of the 

overall regional base quota would be 

deducted from the sub-region(s) that 

caused the overharvest. However, if a 

sub-region’s quota is overharvested but 

the overall regional quota is not 

exceeded, then no overharvest would be 

deducted from either sub-region the 

following fishing season. In addition, in 

cases where carry over is allowed, any 

underharvest of the overall regional base 

quota would be equally distributed to 

both sub-regions in the next fishing 

season, unless the status of the species 

or one of the species in the management 

group is unknown, overfished, or 

overfishing is occurring, in which case, 

NMFS would not carry over the 

underharvest to the following year’s 

base annual quota. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Preferred Alternative D4 would likely 

result in both direct and indirect shortand long-term neutral ecological 

impacts on LCS within the western and 

eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions. The 

preferred sub-regional LCS quotas 

would have no impact on the current 

level of fishing pressure, catch rates or 

distribution of fishing effort since 

current LCS quotas are being 

maintained, but instead represents an 

administrative change in how quotas are 

monitored throughout the Gulf of 

Mexico region. In the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico sub-region, no changes would 

be made in the existing quota linkages 

between aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead sharks, which would 

likely result in neutral ecological 

impacts, since current conditions would 

be maintained. In contrast, in the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, 

quota linkages would be removed 

between aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead sharks. While quota 

linkages mitigate incidental mortality of 

species caught together, only 0.6 percent 

of hammerhead shark landings in the 

Gulf of Mexico region can be attributed 

to fishing activities in the western Gulf 

of Mexico sub-region. In the western 

Gulf of Mexico region, due to the 

difficulties associated with managing a 

small quota of 0.1 mt dw, harvest of 

hammerhead sharks would be 

prohibited. Prohibiting harvest of 

hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf 

of Mexico would reduce the likelihood 

of overharvesting the hammerhead 

shark quota by quickly exceeding a 

small quota, and eliminate the need to 

monitor a small quota. Because landings 

of hammerhead in the western Gulf of 

Mexico are minimal, Alternative D4 

would still likely result in neutral 

ecological impacts on LCS within the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. 

Alternative D4 would likely result in 

both direct and indirect short- and longterm neutral socioeconomic impacts 

across the entire Gulf of Mexico region, 

as increased revenues associated with 

increased flexibility with season 

opening dates as a result of 

implementing sub-regional quotas 

would be countered by potential losses 

from prohibiting landings of 

hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf 

of Mexico. Removing quota linkages 

within the western Gulf of Mexico subregion would have beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts, as fishermen 

active in this region would be able to 

continue fishing for aggregated LCS 

without fishing activities in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico sub-region determining 

the timing of the aggregated LCS fishery 

closure. Economic advantages 

associated with removing quota 

linkages, allowing the western Gulf of 

Mexico sub-region to continue to land a 

larger number of aggregated LCS, would 

offset any potential lost income from 

prohibiting landings of hammerhead 

shark. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion, no socioeconomic impacts are 

expected by maintaining the quota 

linkages already in place for LCS. 

The other preferred alternative, 

Alternative D6, would establish a Gulf 

of Mexico non-blacknose SCS TAC of 

954.7 mt dw and increase the 

commercial quota in the Gulf of Mexico 

region to the 2014 adjusted annual 

quota of 68.3 mt dw (150,476 lb dw). 

This TAC is calculated by summing the 

sources of mortality for Atlantic 

sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth 

sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP20JA15.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2657 

(recreational landings, commercial 

discards, and research set-aside 

mortality) and adding the 2014 adjusted 

annual quota of 68.3 mt dw. This nonblacknose SCS TAC and commercial 

quota takes into account all sources of 

mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, 

bonnethead, and finetooth sharks and 

maintains current quota levels, due to 

uncertainty with the SEDAR 34 stock 

assessment and comments from the 

stock assessment peer reviewers, who 

expressed concern that bonnethead 

sharks were not split into two different 

stocks and analyzed in a manner that is 

similar to what was done with Atlantic 

sharpnose sharks. In addition, there is 

uncertainty about the data and life 

history information for finetooth sharks, 

so NMFS would prefer to take a 

relatively conservative approach with 

finetooth sharks and not increase 

landings substantially until a new stock 

assessment is complete. The commercial 

quota under Alternative D6 reflects the 

current fishing effort and pressure in the 

Gulf of Mexico for non-blacknose SCS. 

Under Alternative D6, the commercial 

quota and TAC would not result in any 

changes in current fishing effort or catch 

rates of non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf 

of Mexico. With anticipated fishing 

activities remaining the same, no 

increases in potential bycatch or 

increased interactions with non-target, 

incidentally caught species are 

expected. Thus, the preferred 

Alternative D6, would likely result in 

short- and long-term minor beneficial 

ecological impacts on non-blacknose 

SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region 

because the alternative maintains the 

quota at the present level, which is 

below the quota projected in the stock 

assessment, and interactions with 

blacknose sharks would remain the 

same. 

Alternative D6 would result in both 

direct and indirect short- and long-term 

neutral to minor adverse socioeconomic 

impacts because it would increase the 

commercial quota above the current 

base non-blacknose SCS quota, 

providing fishermen with additional 

opportunities to profit from landing 

non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of 

Mexico region, while keeping 

interactions with blacknose sharks at 

current levels, as quota linkages would 

be maintained. Given current financial 

difficulties faced by fishermen, 

associated with declining ex-vessel 

prices and restrictions on the sale of 

shark fins, the beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts of increasing the annual quota 

by 12.8 mt dw from the current base 

quota would likely be minimal. In 

addition, the proposed commercial 

quota of 68.3 mt dw could have minor 

adverse impacts since 2013 nonblacknose SCS landings exceeded this 

commercial quota. However, due to the 

uncertainties in SEDAR 34 and given 

the unknown stock status of bonnethead 

sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region and 

uncertainty about the data and life 

history information for finetooth sharks, 

NMFS believes that the proposed 

commercial quota would continue to 

provide fishermen with sufficient 

opportunity to harvest non-blacknose 

SCS, while maintaining the species at 

sustainable levels. 

Cumulatively, Alternatives D4 and D6 

would have positive impacts on the 

current state of shark fisheries in the 

Gulf of Mexico region. Implementing 

the eastern and western sub-regional 

quotas in Alternative D4 would allow 

fishermen to maximize their fishing 

effort during periods when sharks 

migrate into local waters or periods 

when sales of shark meat are increased, 

as well as providing increased revenue 

associated with potentially landing a 

larger portion of their sub-regional 

quota. Additionally, Alternative D4 

would provide increased flexibility in 

the application of shark management 

measures throughout the Gulf of Mexico 

region, without having any adverse 

economic or ecological consequences. 

Alternative D6 would allow for nonblacknose SCS landings to be capped at 

the 2014 adjusted quota, and be 

conservative based on uncertainties 

associated with the SEDAR 34 stock 

assessment for bonnethead sharks and 

the SEDAR 13 stock assessment for 

finetooth sharks. Because of the neutral 

ecological impacts expected to shark 

species as well as non-target, incidental 

species and bycatch, and the moderately 

beneficial economic impact expected by 

these combined measures, NMFS 

prefers these alternatives at this time. 

NMFS also analyzed five other 

alternatives related to Gulf of Mexico 

sub-regional quotas that are not 

preferred at this time. Alternative D1, 

the No Action alternative, would not 

change the current quota management of 

the shark fisheries in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Alternative D2 would apportion 

the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for 

LCS along 89°00′ W Longitude into 

eastern and western sub-regional quotas, 

while maintaining current linkages. 

Alternative D3 would apportion the 

Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for LCS 

along 88°00′ W Longitude into eastern 

and western sub-regional quotas, while 

maintaining current linkages. 

Alternative D5 would establish a nonblacknose SCS TAC of 931.9 mt dw, 

based on current levels of catch, and 

maintain the current commercial base 

annual non-blacknose SCS quota of 45.5 

mt dw (100,317 lb dw). Alternative D7 

would establish a non-blacknose SCS 

TAC of 1,064.9 mt dw and increase the 

commercial quota to twice the 2013 

landings, which is 178.5 mt dw (393,566 

lb dw). While some of these alternatives 

share some similar components with the 

preferred alternatives, NMFS does not 

prefer the remaining alternatives at this 

time for a variety of reasons. Alternative 

D1, the status quo alternative, does not 

address some of the issues facing the 

Atlantic shark fisheries and the current 

purpose of Amendment 6 is to increase 

flexibility for shark fishermen. 

Alternative D2 does not take into 

consideration quota linkages between 

aggregated LCS and hammerhead 

sharks. While Alternative D3 would 

have neutral ecological impacts on Gulf 

of Mexico shark species and non-target 

species and have beneficial economic 

impacts, the alternative is not preferred 

because the split in Alternatives D2 and 

D4 may reflect the distribution of 

fishing constituents better. The quota 

under Alternative D5 would not address 

the financial difficulties faced by shark 

fishermen throughout the Gulf of 

Mexico or improve the current state of 

the Gulf of Mexico shark fisheries. 

Finally, the increased quota under 

Alternative D7 could likely negatively 

impact blacknose sharks, which have an 

unknown status, and would have an 

unknown impact on finetooth sharks. 

Upgrading Restrictions 

NMFS is considering removing the 

upgrading restrictions for shark LAP 

holders in order to reduce restrictions 

for fishermen to buy and sell shark 

permits. The current preferred 

alternative, Alternative E2, would 

remove current upgrading restrictions 

for shark directed LAP holders. 

Eliminating these restrictions would 

have short- and long-term minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since 

it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or 

transfer shark directed permits without 

worrying about the 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 vessel baseline 

specifications. In addition, the upgrade 

restriction for shark permit holders was 

implemented in part to match the 

upgrading restrictions for the Northeast 

multispecies permits. NMFS is currently 

considering removing the upgrading 

restrictions for the Northeast 

multispecies permits, and if those are 

removed, then removing the upgrading 

restrictions for shark directed LAP 

holders could aid in maintaining 

consistency for fishermen who hold 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

multiple permits. Removing the 

upgrading restrictions would not affect 

the number of sharks being landed by 

vessels, as the amount of sharks landed 

is determined by the retention limit and 

quotas, not the size of the vessel. Thus, 

this preferred alternative would have 

short- and long-term neutral ecological 

impacts since removing restrictions on 

shark directed LAPs related to vessel 

specifications would have no impacts 

on the biological status of Atlantic 

sharks. NMFS prefers this alternative at 

this time because it would provide more 

flexibility for current shark LAP holders 

by eliminating the upgrading 

restrictions for shark directed permit 

holders, without having any negative 

ecological effects, and potentially could 

maintain consistency with the Northeast 

multispecies fisheries permit 

requirements, if those requirements also 

are removed. 

NMFS also analyzed the No Action 

alternative that would have maintained 

the current upgrading restrictions 

related to horsepower, length overall, 

gross registered tonnage and net 

tonnage. This alternative would have 

neutral ecological and socioeconomic 

impacts, since it would maintain the 

status quo. However, the No Action 

alternative limits fishermen’s ability to 

update vessels or engines to more fuelefficient ones and would provide less 

flexibility for fishermen when buying, 

selling, or transferring LAPs than the 

preferred alternative. 

Public Hearings 

Comments on this proposed rule may 

be submitted via http://

www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax and 

comments may also be submitted at a 

public hearing. NMFS solicits 

comments on this proposed rule by 

April 3, 2015. During the comment 

period, NMFS will hold 4 public 

hearings and 1 conference call for this 

proposed rule. The hearing locations 

will be physically accessible to people 

with disabilities. Requests for sign 

language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

LeAnn Hogan or Guy ́ DuBeck at 301– 

427–8503, at least 7 days prior to the 

meeting. NMFS has also asked to 

present information on the proposed 

rule and draft Amendment 6 to the 

Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New 

England Fishery Management Councils 

and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine 

Fisheries Commissions at their meetings 

during the public comment period. 

Please see their meeting notices for 

dates, times, and locations. 

TABLE 1—DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATIONS OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONFERENCE CALL

Venue Date/time Meeting locations Location contact information 

Public Hearing ..................... February 17, 2015, 5 p.m.– 

8 p.m.

St. Petersburg, FL ............. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional 

Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, 

FL 33701. 

Public Hearing ..................... February 18, 2015, 5 p.m.– 

8 p.m.

Melbourne, FL ................... Melbourne Public Library, 540 E. Fee Ave, Melbourne, 

FL 32901. 

Public Hearing ..................... February 23, 2015, 5 p.m.– 

8 p.m.

Belle Chasse, LA ............... Belle Chasse Branch Library, 8442 Louisiana 23, Belle 

Chasse, LA 70037. 

Public Hearing ..................... February 26, 2015, 5 p.m.– 

8 p.m.

Manteo, NC ....................... Commissioners Meeting Room, Dare County Administration Building, 954 Marshall C. Collins Dr., 

Manteo, NC 27954. 

Conference call .................... March 25, 2015, 2 p.m.–4 

p.m.

............................................ To participate in conference call, call: (877) 918–1344 

Passcode: 7371832. 

To participate in webinar, RSVP at: https://

noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/

g.php?d=998580989&t=a. A confirmation email with 

webinar log-in information will be sent after RSVP is 

registered. 

The public is reminded that NMFS 

expects participants at the public 

hearings to conduct themselves 

appropriately. At the beginning of each 

public hearing, a representative of 

NMFS will explain the ground rules 

(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the 

hearing room; attendees will be called to 

give their comments in the order in 

which they registered to speak; each 

attendee will have an equal amount of 

time to speak; and attendees should not 

interrupt one another). At the beginning 

of the conference call, the moderator 

will explain how the conference call 

will be conducted and how and when 

attendees can provide comments. The 

NMFS representative will attempt to 

structure the meeting so that all 

attending members of the public will be 

able to comment, if they so choose, 

regardless of the controversial nature of 

the subject(s). Attendees are expected to 

respect the ground rules, and, if they do 

not, they may be asked to leave the 

hearing or may not be allowed to speak 

during the conference call. 

Classification 

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that the proposed rule is 

consistent with the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and its amendments, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable law, subject to 

further consideration after public 

comment. 

NMFS prepared a draft EA for Draft 

Amendment 6 that discusses the impact 

on the environment that would occur as 

a result of this proposed action. In this 

proposed action, NMFS is considering 

both adjusting current management 

measures affecting the Atlantic shark 

fisheries, as well as creating new 

measures that provide managers and 

fishermen with operational and 

implementation flexibility. A copy of 

the EA is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

IRFA describes the economic impact 

this proposed rule would have on small 

entities if adopted. A description of the 

action, why it is being considered, and 

the legal basis for this action are 

contained at the beginning of this 

section in the preamble and in the 

SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 

summary of the analysis follows. A copy 

of this analysis is available from NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2659 

Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to 

describe the reasons why the action is 

being considered. This proposed action 

is being considered to implement 

management measures for the Atlantic 

shark fisheries that will achieve the 

objectives of increasing management 

flexibility to adapt to the changing 

needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, 

and achieve optimum yield while 

rebuilding overfished shark stocks and 

ending overfishing. In September 2010, 

NMFS published an ANPR to request 

public comment on potential 

adjustments to the regulations governing 

the Atlantic shark fisheries to address 

specific issues currently affecting 

management of the shark fisheries and 

to identify specific goals for 

management of these fisheries in the 

future. Based on the comments received 

on the ANPR, in September 2011, NMFS 

published a NOI to prepare an FMP 

Amendment that would consider catch 

shares for the Atlantic shark fisheries. 

Since the publication of the NOI, there 

have been a few major changes in the 

Federal management of the Atlantic 

shark fisheries, including the 

publication of Amendment 5a. In 

addition to the changes in Federal 

regulations, there have also been 

changes in state shark management, 

such as the shark fin possession 

prohibitions. In considering comments 

received on the ANPR and NOI, in April 

2014, NMFS released a Predraft for 

Amendment 6 that included 

management options for changes to 

regional quota and permit structures. On 

May, 27 2014, NMFS published another 

NOI announcing its intent to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) instead 

of an Environmental Impact Statement 

and that the agency is moving away 

from the catch share concept for this 

particular Amendment. Since the 

publication of these documents, and 

reviewing the comments received, 

NMFS has continued to consider 

various ways to move forward to 

address recurring issues through 

regulations that provide managers and 

fishermen with increased management 

and implementation flexibility, while 

maintaining conservation measures for 

the commercial shark fisheries. 

Section 603(b)(2) requires Agencies to 

describe the objectives of the proposed 

rule. The management goals and 

objectives of this action are to 

implement management measures for 

the Atlantic shark fisheries that will 

achieve the objectives of increasing 

management flexibility to adapt to the 

changing needs of the Atlantic shark 

fisheries, and achieve optimum yield 

while rebuilding overfished shark stocks 

and ending overfishing. To achieve this 

purpose and need, and to comply with 

existing statutes such as the MagnusonStevens Act and its objectives, NMFS 

has identified the following objectives 

with regard to this proposed action: 

• Increasing the efficiency in the LCS 

and SCS fisheries; 

• Maintaining or increasing equity 

across all shark fishermen and regions; 

• Promoting economic viability for 

the shark fishery participants; 

• Obtaining optimum yield from the 

LCS and SCS fisheries; 

• Maintaining or increasing 

management flexibility for the shark 

fisheries; 

• Decreasing dead discards of sharks; 

• Continuing to rebuild overfished 

shark stocks; and 

• Preventing overfishing of shark 

stocks. 

Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to 

provide an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the rule would 

apply. On June 12, 2014, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) issued 

an interim final rule revising the small 

business size standards for several 

industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 

33467). The rule increased the size 

standard from $19.0 to $20.5 million for 

finfish fishing, from $5 to $5.5 million 

for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0 

million to $7.5 million for other marine 

fishing, for-hire businesses, and 

marinas. Id. at 33656, 33660, 33666. 

NMFS has reviewed the analyses 

prepared for this action in light of the 

new size standards. Under the former, 

lower size standards, all entities subject 

to this action were considered small 

entities, thus they all would continue to 

be considered small under the new 

standards. NMFS does not think that the 

new size standards affect analyses 

prepared for this action and solicits 

public comment on the analyses in light 

of the new size standards. Under these 

standards, NMFS considers all Atlantic 

HMS permit holders subject to this 

rulemaking to be small entities. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the 

Draft EA for Amendment 6, the 

proposed rule would apply to the 473 

commercial shark permit holders in the 

Atlantic shark fishery, based on an 

analysis of permit holders as of 

September 2014. Of these permit 

holders, 214 have directed shark 

permits and 259 hold incidental shark 

permits. Not all permit holders are 

active in the fishery in any given year. 

Active directed permit holders are 

defined as those with valid permits that 

landed one shark based on HMS 

electronic dealer reports. Based on 2013 

HMS electronic dealer data, 68 shark 

directed permit holders were active in 

the Atlantic and 22 shark directed 

permit holders were active in the Gulf 

of Mexico. NMFS has determined that 

the proposed rule would not likely 

affect any small governmental 

jurisdictions. More information 

regarding the description of the fisheries 

affected and the categories and number 

of permit holders can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the Draft EA for 

Amendment 6. 

Section 603(b)(4) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires Agencies to 

describe any new reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements. The action does not 

contain any new collection of 

information, reporting, recordkeeping, 

or other compliance requirements. 

Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, 

agencies must identify, to the extent 

practicable, relevant Federal rules 

which duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. Fishermen, 

dealers, and managers in these fisheries 

must comply with a number of 

international agreements, domestic 

laws, and other FMPs. These include 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic 

Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), the High 

Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 

Coastal Zone Management Act. This 

proposed rule has been determined not 

to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

any Federal rules. 

On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a 

final rule that, among other things, 

listed as threatened under the ESA a 

Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks (79 FR 38214). This 

DPS occurs within the boundary of 

Atlantic HMS commercial and 

recreational fisheries, which are 

managed by NMFS. On August 27, 2014, 

NMFS published a final rule that, 

among other things, listed as threatened, 

or determined that threatened status 

was still warranted for, seven species of 

corals that occur within the boundary of 

Atlantic HMS fisheries. 

On October 30, 2014, based on the 

new listings, NMFS requested 

reinitiation of ESA section 7 

consultation on the continued operation 

and use of HMS gear types (bandit gear, 

bottom longline, buoy gear, handline, 

and rod and reel) and associated 

fisheries management actions in the 

2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP 

and its amendments. NMFS also 

submitted a biological evaluation to 

support this request for reinitiation of 

consultation and to provide 

supplemental information for an 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ongoing consultation for the pelagic 

longline fishery. Pending completion of 

consultation, NMFS has determined that 

the ongoing operation of the fisheries is 

consistent with existing biological 

opinions and is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence or result in an 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources which would foreclose 

formulation or implementation of any 

reasonable and prudent alternative 

measures on the threatened Central and 

Southwest DPS of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks or threatened coral 

species. 

One of the requirements of an IRFA is 

to describe any alternatives to the 

proposed rule which accomplish the 

stated objectives and which minimize 

any significant economic impacts. These 

impacts are discussed below. 

Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 

603(c)(1)–(4)) lists four general 

categories of ‘‘significant’’ alternatives 

that would assist an agency in the 

development of significant alternatives. 

These categories of alternatives are: (1) 

Establishment of differing compliance 

or reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources 

available to small entities; (2) 

clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for such small entities; (3) use of 

performance rather than design 

standards; and (4) exemptions from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

In order to meet the objectives of this 

proposed rule, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the 

ESA, NMFS cannot establish differing 

compliance requirements for small 

entities or exempt small entities from 

compliance requirements. Thus, there 

are no alternatives discussed that fall 

under the first and fourth categories 

described above. NMFS does not know 

of any performance or design standards 

that would satisfy the objectives of this 

rulemaking while, concurrently, 

complying with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. As described below, NMFS 

analyzed several different alternatives in 

this proposed rulemaking and provides 

rationales for identifying the preferred 

alternatives to achieve the desired 

objectives. 

The alternatives considered and 

analyzed are described below. The IRFA 

assumes that each vessel will have 

similar catch and gross revenues to 

show the relative impact of the 

proposed action on vessels. In this 

rulemaking, we considered 6 different 

categories of management measures to 

address current issues facing LCS and 

SCS shark fisheries. These categories are 

permit stacking (A1–A3), commercial 

retention limits (B1–B4), Atlantic subregional quotas (C1–C7), Gulf of Mexico 

sub-regional quotas (D1–D7), and 

upgrading restrictions (E1 and E2). 

Permit Stacking 

Under Alternative A1, the preferred 

alternative, NMFS would not implement 

permit stacking for the shark directed 

limited access permit holders. NMFS 

would continue to allow only one 

directed limited access permit per 

vessel and thus one retention limit. The 

current retention limit of 36 LCS per 

trip would result in potential trip 

revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61 

lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 

for fins. It is likely that this alternative 

could possibly have minor adverse 

socioeconomic impacts in the long term, 

because if fishermen are unable to retain 

an increased number of LCS per trip by 

stacking permits, the profitability of 

each trip could decline over time, due 

to declining prices for shark products 

and increasing prices for gas, bait, and 

other associated costs. The No Action 

alternative could also have neutral 

indirect impacts to those supporting the 

commercial shark fisheries, since the 

retention limits, and thus current 

fishing efforts, would not change under 

this alternative. 

Under Alternative A2, NMFS would 

allow fishermen to concurrently use a 

maximum of two shark directed permits 

on one vessel, which would result in 

aggregated, and thus higher, trip limits. 

Under the current LCS retention limit of 

36 LCS, this would allow a vessel with 

two stacked permits to have a LCS 

retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. This 

new retention limit would result in 

potential trip revenues of $2,332 (2,448 

lb of meat, 124 lb of fins) per vessel, 

assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for 

meat and $6.05 for fins, which is an 

increase of $1,166 per trip compared to 

the status quo alternative. For fishermen 

that currently have two directed limited 

access permits, this alternative would 

have short-term minor beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts because these 

fishermen would be able to stack their 

permits and avail themselves of the 

retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. The 

higher retention limit is likely to make 

each trip more profitable for fishermen, 

as well as more efficient, if they decide 

to take fewer trips and in turn save 

money on gas, bait, and other associated 

costs. This alternative could also have 

indirect, minor beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts to entities 

supporting the commercial shark 

fisheries, such as fishing tackle 

manufacturers and suppliers, bait 

suppliers, fuel providers, and shark 

dealers, because the increased efficiency 

and profitability in the fisheries could 

also lead to increases in potential 

employment, personal income, and 

sales for the entities supporting the 

fisheries. However, the current number 

of directed permits in the Atlantic 

region is 136, and 130 of those permits 

have different owners. In the Gulf of 

Mexico, of the 83 directed shark 

permits, 73 have different owners. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that many of the 

current directed shark permit holders 

would be able to benefit from this 

alternative in the short-term. In 

addition, the cost of one directed shark 

permit can run anywhere between 

$2,000 and $5,000, which could be 

difficult for many shark fishermen to 

afford. For fishermen that do not 

currently have more than one directed 

shark permit, this alternative could have 

long-term minor beneficial impacts if 

these fishermen are able to acquire an 

additional permit and offset the cost of 

the additional permit by taking 

advantage of the potential economic 

benefits of the higher retention limits. 

Nevertheless, this alternative is unlikely 

to have beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts for the shark fishery as a whole 

because only shark fishermen that could 

afford to buy multiple shark permits 

would benefit from the higher retention 

limit and higher revenues whereas those 

shark fishermen that cannot afford to 

buy a second directed shark permit 

would be at a disadvantage, unable to 

economically benefit from the higher 

retention limits. Given the current 

make-up of the shark fishery, which 

primarily consists of small business 

fishermen with only one permit, and the 

cost of the additional permit, this could 

potentially lead to inequity and 

unfairness among the directed shark 

permit holders if those fishermen that 

currently have multiple directed 

permits or that could afford to buy an 

additional directed permit gain an 

economic advantage. 

Under Alternative A3, NMFS would 

allow fishermen to concurrently use a 

maximum of three shark directed 

permits on one vessel, which would 

result in aggregated, and thus higher, 

trip limits. Under the current LCS 

retention limit of 36 LCS, this would 

mean that a vessel with three stacked 

permits would have a LCS retention 

limit of 108 LCS per trip. This 

alternative would allow shark directed 

permit holders to retain three times as 

many LCS per trip then the current 

retention limit. This new retention limit 

would result in potential trip revenues 

of $3,498 (3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2661 

fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel 

price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for 

fins, which is an increase of $2,332 per 

trip compared to the status quo 

alternative. The higher retention limit is 

likely to make each trip more profitable 

for fishermen, as well as more efficient, 

if they decide to take fewer trips and in 

turn save money on gas, bait, and other 

associated costs. Similar to Alternative 

A2, this alternative would have shortterm minor beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts for fishermen that currently 

have three shark directed limited access 

permits, because these fishermen would 

be able to stack their permits and avail 

themselves of the retention limit of 108 

LCS per trip. As mentioned above, the 

current number of shark directed permit 

holders is 219, with 93 percent having 

different owners. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that many of the current 

directed shark permit holders currently 

hold three directed shark permits and 

would be able to benefit from this 

alternative in the short-term. For 

fishermen who do not currently have 

more than one directed shark permit, 

this alternative could have larger longterm beneficial socioeconomic impacts 

than Alternative 2, if these fishermen 

are able to acquire two additional 

permits and offset the cost of the 

additional permits by taking advantage 

of the potential economic benefits of 

retaining up to 108 LCS per trip. 

However, for the same reasons 

discussed for Alternative A2, this 

alternative is unlikely to have 

socioeconomic benefits for those shark 

fishermen that cannot afford to buy two 

additional directed permits, and thus 

would be unable to economically 

benefit from a higher retention limit. 

Thus, given the current make-up of the 

shark fishery, Alternative A3 could 

potentially lead to more inequity and 

unfairness among the directed shark 

permit holders than Alternative A2, 

especially if those fishermen that 

currently have multiple directed 

permits or that could afford to buy 

additional directed permits gain an 

economic advantage under this 

alternative. 

Commercial Retention Limits 

Alternative B1 would not change the 

current commercial LCS retention limit 

for shark directed permit holders. The 

retention limit would remain at 36 LCS 

other than sandbar sharks per trip for 

directed permit holders. This retention 

limit would result in potential trip 

revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61 

lb of fins) per vessel assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 

for fins. It is likely that this alternative 

would have short-term neutral 

socioeconomic impacts, since the 

retention limits would not change under 

this alternative. However, not adjusting 

the retention limit would have longterm minor adverse socioeconomic 

impacts, due to the expected continuing 

decline in prices for shark products and 

increase in gas, bait, and other 

associated costs, which would lead to 

declining profitability of individual 

trips. In recent years, there have been 

changes in federal and state regulations, 

including the implementation of 

Amendment 5a and state bans on the 

possession, sale, and trade of shark fins, 

which have impacted shark fishermen. 

In addition to federal and state 

regulations, there have also been many 

international efforts to prohibit shark 

finning at sea, as well as campaigns 

targeted at the shark fin soup markets. 

All of these efforts have impacted the 

market and demand for shark fins. In 

addition, NMFS has seen a steady 

decline in ex-vessel prices for shark fins 

in all regions since 2010 (NMFS 2013). 

Alternative B2, the preferred 

alternative, would increase the LCS 

retention limit to a maximum of 55 LCS 

other than sandbar sharks per trip for 

shark directed permit holders and 

reduce the sandbar shark research 

fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw (166,826 lb 

dw). This alternative would allow shark 

directed permit holders to retain 19 

more LCS per trip than the current 

retention limit. This new retention limit 

would result in potential trip revenues 

of $1,781 (1,870 lb of meat, 94 lb of 

fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of 

$0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. This 

alternative would have short- and longterm direct minor beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts, since shark 

directed permit holders could land more 

sharks per trip when compared to the 

current retention limit of 36 LCS per 

trip. The higher retention limit is likely 

to make each trip more profitable for 

fishermen, as well as more efficient, if 

they decide to take fewer trips, and in 

turn save money on fuel, bait, and other 

associated costs. Regarding the shark 

research fishery, this alternative could 

cause an average annual loss of $85,944, 

since the sandbar research fishery quota 

would be reduced by 90,230 lb dw. This 

potential lost income for the research 

fishery could be positive for commercial 

fishermen, since the increased retention 

limit could make trips more profitable. 

NMFS estimates that this reduction in 

the sandbar research fishery quota 

would have neutral socioeconomic 

impacts, based on current limited 

resources available to fund observed 

trips in the fishery and the current 

harvest level of the sandbar research 

fishery quota. In 2013, the vessels 

participating in the Atlantic shark 

research fishery only landed 37.0 mt dw 

(81,628 lb dw), or 32 percent, of the 

available sandbar shark quota. Under 

the new sandbar shark quota with the 

Atlantic shark research fishery, the 2013 

landings would result in 49 percent of 

the new sandbar shark quota being 

landed. If available resources increase in 

the future for more observed trips in the 

fishery, then this alternative could have 

minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if 

the full quota is caught and the fishery 

has to close earlier in the year. 

Alternative B3 would increase the 

LCS retention limit to a maximum of 72 

LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip 

for shark directed permit holders and 

reduce the sandbar shark research 

fishery quota to 63.0 mt dw (138,937 lb 

dw). This alternative would double the 

current retention limit. This new 

retention limit would result in potential 

trip revenues of $2,332 (2,448 lb of 

meat, 124 lb of fins), assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 

for fins. This alternative would have 

short- and long-term minor beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts, since shark 

directed permit holders could land 

twice as many LCS per trip. Shark 

directed trips would become more 

profitable, but more permit holders 

could become active in order to avail 

themselves of this higher trip limit. 

Before Amendment 2, there were 143 

active directed shark permit holders, 

and the number of active directed shark 

permit holders has declined to 90, due 

to the current retention limit and 

declines in shark product prices. The 

increased retention limit could cause 

some fishermen to become active again, 

potentially causing a derby fishery and 

bringing the price of shark products 

even lower. Thus, NMFS needs to 

balance providing the flexibility of 

increasing the efficiency of trips and the 

associated socioeconomic benefits with 

the negative socioeconomic impacts of 

derby fishing and lower profits. This 

alternative could have neutral impacts 

for fishermen participating in the 

Atlantic shark research fishery, since 

the 2013 landings (37.0 mt dw; 81,628 

lb dw) would result in 59 percent of the 

new sandbar shark quota being landed. 

Under Alternative B3, the new sandbar 

shark quota could result in average 

annual loss revenue of $112,508 for 

those fishermen participating in the 

shark research fishery, but the income 

could be recouped by the increased 

retention limit outside the shark 

research fishery. If available resources 

increase in the future for more observed 

trips in the fishery, then this alternative 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

still would have neutral socioeconomic 

impacts, since the observed trips would 

be distributed throughout the year to 

ensure the research fishery remains 

open and obtains biological and catch 

data all year round. 

Alternative B4 would increase the 

LCS retention limit to a maximum of 

108 LCS other than sandbar sharks per 

trip for shark directed permit holders 

and reduce the sandbar shark research 

fishery quota to 36.2 mt dw (79,878 lb 

dw). This alternative would allow shark 

directed permit holders to retain three 

times as many LCS per trip as the 

current retention limit. This new 

retention limit would result in potential 

trip revenues of $3,498 (3,672 lb of 

meat, 184 lb of fins), assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 

for fins. This alternative could have 

short- and long-term moderate 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since 

shark directed permit holders could 

land three times the current LCS 

retention limit. This increased retention 

limit could result in 3,672 lb dw of LCS 

per trip, which could bring the fishery 

almost back to historical levels of 4,000 

lb dw LCS per trip. While a retention 

limit of 108 LCS per trip would make 

each trip more profitable and potentially 

require fishermen to take fewer trips per 

year, this large increase in the retention 

limit could cause a lot more permit 

holders to become active. Thus, the 

profit of individual vessels could 

decrease, because LCS quotas could be 

caught at a faster rate, and the fishing 

season could be shortened. 

Additionally, in order to increase the 

retention limit to 108 LCS per trip, the 

sandbar shark research quota would 

need to be reduced to an amount below 

what is currently being landed in the 

shark research fishery, which would 

have adverse impacts on fishermen in 

the shark research fishery, who would 

lose quota, and thus revenue. 

Atlantic Regional and Sub-Regional 

Quotas 

Alternative C1, the No Action 

alternative, would not change the 

current management of the Atlantic 

shark fisheries. This alternative would 

likely result in short-term, direct neutral 

socioeconomic impacts as fisheries 

would continue to operate under 

current conditions, with shark 

fishermen continuing to fish at current 

rates. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel 

prices, the annual gross revenues for the 

entire fleet from aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark meat in the Atlantic 

region would be $339,998, while the 

shark fins would be $76,299. Thus, total 

average annual gross revenues for 

aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark 

landings in the Atlantic region would be 

$416,297 ($339,998 + $76,299), which is 

9 percent of the entire revenue for the 

shark fishery. For the non-blacknose 

SCS and blacknose shark landings, the 

annual gross revenues for the entire fleet 

from the meat would be $304,747, while 

the shark fins would be $75,537. The 

total average annual gross revenues for 

non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark 

landings in the Atlantic region would be 

$380,284 ($304,747 + $75,537), which is 

8 percent of the entire revenue for the 

shark fishery. However, this alternative 

would likely result in long-term minor 

adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

Negative impacts would be partly due to 

the continued negative effects of federal 

and state regulations related to shark 

finning and sale of shark fins, which 

have resulted in declining ex-vessel 

prices of fins since 2010, as well as 

continued changes in shark fishery 

management measures. Additionally, 

under the current regulations, fishermen 

operating in the south of the Atlantic 

region drastically impact the availability 

of quota remaining for fishermen 

operating in the north of the Atlantic 

region. If fishermen in the south fish 

early in the year, they have the ability 

to land a large proportion of the quota 

before fishermen in the north have the 

opportunity to fish, due to time/area 

closures and seasonal migrations of LCS 

and SCS. Indirect short-term 

socioeconomic impacts resulting from 

any of the actions in Alternative C1 

would likely be neutral because the 

measures would maintain the status quo 

with respect to shark landings and 

fishing effort. However, this alternative 

would likely result in indirect long-term 

minor adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

Negative socioeconomic impacts and 

decreased revenues associated with 

financial difficulties experienced by 

fishermen within Atlantic shark 

fisheries would carry over to the dealers 

and supporting businesses they 

regularly interact with. 

Alternative C2 would apportion the 

Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and 

SCS along 33°00′ N. Lat. (approximately 

at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina) into 

northern and southern sub-regional 

quotas and potentially adjust the nonblacknose SCS quota based on the 

results of the 2013 assessments for 

Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead 

sharks. Establishing sub-regional quotas 

could allow for flexibility in seasonal 

openings within the Atlantic region. 

Different seasonal openings within subregions would allow fishermen to 

maximize their fishing effort during 

periods when sharks migrate into local 

waters or when regional time/area 

closures are not in effect. This would 

benefit the economic interests of North 

Carolina and Florida fishermen, the 

primary constituents impacted by the 

timing of seasonal openings for LCS and 

SCS in the Atlantic, by placing them in 

separate sub-regions with separate subregional quotas. Under this alternative, 

the northern Atlantic sub-region would 

receive 24.5 percent of the total 

aggregated LCS quota (41.4 mt dw; 

91,275 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the 

total hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt 

dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013 

ex-vessel prices, the annual gross 

revenues for aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark meat in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $86,970, 

while the shark fins would be $19,705. 

Thus, total average annual gross 

revenues for aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark landings in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$106,675 ($86,970 + $19,705). There are 

approximately 61 directed shark permit 

holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $1,749 per vessel. When compared to 

the other alternatives, the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would have minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts under 

Alternative C2, because this alternative 

would result in the highest total average 

annual gross revenues for aggregated 

LCS and hammerhead sharks. In the 

southern Atlantic sub-region, fishermen 

would receive 75.5 percent of the total 

aggregated LCS quota (127.5 mt dw; 

281,277 lb dw) and 65.9 percent of the 

total hammerhead shark quota (17.9 mt 

dw; 39,366 lb dw). Based on the 2013 

ex-vessel prices, the annual gross 

revenues for aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark meat in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $253,029, 

while the shark fins would be $56,593. 

The total average annual gross revenues 

for aggregated LCS and hammerhead 

shark landings in the southern Atlantic 

sub-region would be $309,622 ($253,029 

+ $56,593). When compared to the other 

alternatives, the southern Atlantic subregion would have minor adverse 

socioeconomic impacts under 

Alternative C2, because this alternative 

would result in lower total average 

annual gross revenues for aggregated 

LCS and hammerhead sharks. 

Under Alternative C2, NMFS would 

determine the blacknose shark quota for 

each sub-region using the percentage of 

landings associated with blacknose 

sharks within each sub-region and the 

new non-blacknose SCS quotas in 

conjunction with Alternatives C5, C6, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2663 

and C7. The northern Atlantic subregion would receive 32.3 percent of the 

total non-blacknose SCS quota, while 

the southern Atlantic sub-region would 

receive 67.7 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota in this alternative. 

For the blacknose sharks, the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 4.5 

percent of the total blacknose shark 

quota (0.8 mt dw; 1,739 lb dw), while 

the southern Atlantic sub-region would 

receive 95.5 percent of the total 

blacknose shark quota (16.7 mt dw; 

36,899 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 

for blacknose shark meat in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $1,443, 

while the shark fins would be $307. 

Thus, total average annual gross 

revenues for blacknose shark landings 

in the northern Atlantic sub-region 

would be $1,750 ($1,443 + $307). Based 

on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual 

gross revenues for blacknose shark meat 

in the southern Atlantic sub-region 

would be $30,626, while the shark fins 

would be $6,513. The total average 

annual gross revenues for blacknose 

shark landings in the southern Atlantic 

sub-region would be $37,139 ($30,626 + 

$6,513). 

This alternative would have minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts for 

the northern Atlantic sub-region 

fishermen when compared to 

Alternative C3, because fishermen in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would 

receive a higher quota under Alternative 

C2. Alternative C2 would have minor 

adverse economic impacts for the 

southern Atlantic sub-region fishermen 

when compared to other alternatives, 

because fishermen in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive a 

lower quota under Alternative C2. The 

slight increase in some of the subregional quotas within the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would result in 

direct short-term minor beneficial 

impacts, and ultimately direct long-term 

moderate beneficial impacts. Beneficial 

economic impacts are based on 

increased average annual gross revenues 

associated with increased aggregated 

LCS, hammerhead, and non-blacknose 

SCS sub-regional quotas in the northern 

Atlantic region seen in this alternative. 

While Alternative C2 would allow 

fishermen flexibility to maximize 

landings of LCS and SCS within their 

associated sub-regions, it does not take 

into consideration the SEDAR 34 stock 

assessment results or the quota linkages 

between non-blacknose SCS and 

blacknose sharks, and therefore, NMFS 

does not prefer this alternative at this 

time. 

Alternative C3 would apportion the 

Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and 

SCS along 34°00′ N. Lat. (approximately 

at Wilmington, North Carolina) into 

northern and southern sub-regional 

quotas and potentially adjust the nonblacknose SCS quota based on the 

results of the 2013 assessments for 

Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead 

sharks. This alternative would likely 

result in direct short-term minor 

beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct 

long-term moderate beneficial impacts. 

However, drawing the regional 

boundary between the northern and 

southern Atlantic sub-regions along 

34°00′ N. Lat. would result in more 

equitable sub-regional quotas, in 

comparison to the boundary considered 

in Alternative C2. Under this 

alternative, the northern Atlantic subregion would receive 19.7 percent of the 

total aggregated LCS quota (33.3 mt dw; 

73,393 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the 

total hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt 

dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013 

ex-vessel prices, the annual gross 

revenues for aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark meat in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $72,485, 

while the shark fins would be $16,549. 

Thus, total average annual gross 

revenues for aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark landings in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$89,034 ($72,485 + $16,549). There are 

approximately 61 directed shark permit 

holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $1,460 per vessel. When compared to 

Alternative C2, the northern Atlantic 

sub-region would have minor adverse 

economic impacts under this 

alternative. In the southern Atlantic subregion, fishermen would receive 80.3 

percent of the total aggregated LCS 

quota (135.6 mt dw; 299,159 lb dw) and 

65.9 percent of the total hammerhead 

shark quota (17.9 mt dw; 39,366 lb dw). 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for aggregated 

LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the 

southern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$267,513, while the shark fins would be 

$59,750. The total average annual gross 

revenues for aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead shark landings in the 

southern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$327,263 ($267,513 + $59,750). There 

are approximately 64 directed shark 

permit holders in the southern Atlantic 

sub-region. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $5,113 per vessel. This alternative 

would have minor beneficial economic 

impacts for the southern Atlantic subregion fishermen when compared to 

Alternative C2. 

As in Alternative C2, NMFS would 

determine the blacknose shark quota for 

each sub-region using the percentage of 

landings associated with blacknose 

sharks within each sub-region in 

Alternative C3 and the new nonblacknose SCS quotas in conjunction in 

Alternatives C5, C6, and C7. Under 

Alternative C3, the northern Atlantic 

sub-region would receive 30.3 percent 

of the total non-blacknose SCS quota, 

while the southern Atlantic sub-region 

would receive 69.7 percent of the total 

non-blacknose SCS quota. For the 

blacknose sharks, the northern Atlantic 

sub-region would receive 4.5 percent of 

the total blacknose shark quota (0.8 mt 

dw; 1,732 lb dw), while the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 95.5 

percent of the total blacknose shark 

quota (16.7 mt dw; 36,899 lb dw). Based 

on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual 

gross revenues for blacknose shark meat 

in the northern Atlantic sub-region 

would be $1,443, while the shark fins 

would be $307. Thus, total average 

annual gross revenues for blacknose 

shark landings in the northern Atlantic 

sub-region would be $1,750 ($1,443 + 

$307). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel 

prices, the annual gross revenues for 

blacknose shark meat in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $30,626, 

while the shark fins would be $6,513. 

The total average annual gross revenues 

for blacknose shark landings in the 

southern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$37,139 ($30,626 + $6,513). This 

alternative would have neutral 

socioeconomic impacts for the northern 

Atlantic sub-region fishermen when 

compared to Alternative C2, and would 

have beneficial socioeconomic impacts 

for the southern Atlantic sub-region 

fishermen when compared to 

Alternative C2. 

Alternative C4, one of the preferred 

alternatives, would apportion the 

Atlantic regional quotas for certain LCS 

and SCS management groups along 

34°00′ N. Latitude (approximately at 

Wilmington, North Carolina) into 

northern and southern sub-regional 

quotas, maintain SCS quota linkages in 

the southern sub-region of the Atlantic 

region, remove the SCS quota linkages 

in the northern sub-region of the 

Atlantic region, and prohibit the harvest 

and landings of blacknose sharks in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region. The 

socioeconomic impacts of apportioning 

the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and 

SCS along 34°00′ N. Lat. into northern 

and southern sub-regional quotas as 

preferred in this alternative would have 

the same impacts as described in 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

alternative C3 above. Removing quota 

linkages within the northern Atlantic 

sub-region would have beneficial 

impacts, as active fishermen in this 

region would be able to continue fishing 

for non-blacknose SCS without the 

fishing activities in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region, where the majority 

of blacknose sharks are landed, 

impacting the timing of the nonblacknose SCS fishery closure. 

Economic advantages associated with 

removing quota linkages, allowing the 

northern Atlantic sub-region to land a 

larger number of non-blacknose SCS, 

would outweigh the income lost from 

prohibiting landings of blacknose sharks 

($1,750), particularly given the minimal 

landings of blacknose sharks attributed 

to the northern sub-region. In the 

southern Atlantic region, no 

socioeconomic impacts are expected by 

maintaining the quota linkages already 

in place for SCS. Thus, by removing 

quota linkages in the northern Atlantic 

region, in combination with 

apportioning the Atlantic regional quota 

at 34°00′ N. Lat. to allow fishermen to 

maximize their fishing effort, and 

thereby maximize revenue, during 

periods when sharks migrate into local 

waters or when regional time/area 

closures are not in place, Alternative C4 

would result in overall direct and 

indirect, short- and long-term moderate 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts. 

Alternative C5 would establish a nonblacknose SCS TAC of 353.2 mt dw and 

reduce the non-blacknose SCS 

commercial quota to 128 mt dw 

(282,238 lb dw). When combined with 

the other alternatives to establish subregional non-blacknose SCS quotas, the 

economic impacts of Alternative C5 

would vary based on the alternative. 

Under Alternative C2, the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2 

percent of the total non-blacknose SCS 

quota (41.2 mt dw; 90,881 lb dw) and 

the southern Atlantic sub-region would 

receive 67.8 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota (86.8 mt dw; 

191,357 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 

for non-blacknose SCS meat in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$63,617, while the shark fins would be 

$16,040. Thus, total average annual 

gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $79,657 ($63,617 + 

$16,040). There are approximately 61 

directed shark permit holders in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on 

this number of individual permits, the 

total average annual gross revenues for 

the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $1,306 per vessel. 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 

SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $133,950, while the 

shark fins would be $33,775. The total 

average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $167,724 

($133,950 + $33,775). There are 

approximately 56 directed shark permit 

holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $2,995 per vessel. Sub-regional 

quotas under Alternative C2 are about a 

two percent increase in landings 

allocated to the northern region for nonblacknose SCS when compared to 

Alternative C3. This percentage would 

lead to a slight increase in some of the 

sub-regional quotas within the northern 

Atlantic sub-region, as compared to 

Alternative C3, and would result in 

short-term minor beneficial impacts, 

and ultimately long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region. 

Using the quotas considered under 

Alternative C5 and the sub-regional split 

under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred 

alternative), the northern Atlantic subregion would receive 30.3 percent of the 

total non-blacknose SCS quota (38.8 mt 

dw; 85,518 lb dw), while the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 

percent of the total non-blacknose SCS 

quota (89.2 mt dw; 196,720 lb dw). 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 

SCS meat in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $59,863, while the 

shark fins would be $15,094. The total 

average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $74,957 

($59,863 + $15,094). There are 

approximately 53 directed shark permit 

holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $1,414 per vessel. Based on the 2013 

ex-vessel prices, the annual gross 

revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in 

the southern Atlantic sub-region would 

be $137,704, while the shark fins would 

be $34,721. The total average annual 

gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $172,425 ($137,704 + 

$34,721). There are approximately 64 

directed shark permit holders in the 

southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on 

this number of individual permits, the 

total average annual gross revenues for 

the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $2,694 per vessel. 

Overall, the non-blacknose SCS 

commercial quota considered under this 

alternative is almost thirty percent less 

than the current base quota and less 

than half of the current adjusted quota 

for this management group. Therefore, 

NMFS believes this alternative would 

have short- and long-term minor adverse 

socioeconomic impacts due to the quota 

being capped at a lower level than what 

is currently being landed in the nonblacknose SCS fisheries, leading to a 

loss in annual revenue for these shark 

fishermen. In addition, the adverse 

impacts would be compounded by the 

unknown stock status of bonnethead, 

which would prevent NMFS from 

carrying forward underharvested quota. 

Thus, the commercial quota of 128 mt 

dw would not be adjusted and the 

fishermen would be limited to this 

amount each year, which could lead to 

shorter seasons and reduced flexibility, 

potentially affecting fishermen’s 

decisions to participate. 

Under Alternative C6, a preferred 

alternative, NMFS would establish a 

non-blacknose SCS TAC and maintain 

the current base annual quota of 176.1 

mt dw (388,222 lb dw). When combined 

with the other alternatives to establish 

sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas, 

the economic impacts of Alternative C6 

would vary based on the sub-regional 

quotas. Under Alternatives C2, the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would 

receive 32.2 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota (56.7 mt dw; 

125,007 lb dw) and the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8 

percent of the total non-blacknose SCS 

quota (119.4 mt dw; 263,215 lb dw). 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 

SCS meat in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $87,505, while the 

shark fins would be $22,064. Thus, total 

average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $109,569 

($87,505 + $22,064). There are 

approximately 61 directed shark permit 

holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $1,796 per vessel. Based on the 2013 

ex-vessel prices, the annual gross 

revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in 

the southern Atlantic sub-region would 

be $184,251, while the shark fins would 

be $46,457. The total average annual 

gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $230,708 ($184,251 + 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2665 

$46,457). There are approximately 56 

directed shark permit holders in the 

southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on 

this number of individual permits, the 

total average annual gross revenues for 

the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $4,119 per vessel. Subregional quotas under Alternative C2 

would lead to some slightly higher subregional quotas within the northern 

Atlantic sub-region, as compared to 

Alternative C3, and would result in 

short-term minor beneficial impacts, 

and ultimately long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region. 

Using the quotas considered under 

Alternative C6 and the sub-regional split 

considered under Alternatives C3 and 

C4 (preferred alternative), the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3 

percent of the total non-blacknose SCS 

quota (53.4 mt dw; 117,631 lb dw), 

while the southern Atlantic sub-region 

would receive 69.7 percent of the total 

non-blacknose SCS quota (123.7 mt dw; 

270,591 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 

for non-blacknose SCS meat in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$82,342, while the shark fins would be 

$20,762. The total average annual gross 

revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $103,104 ($82,342 + 

$20,762). There are approximately 53 

directed shark permit holders in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on 

this number of individual permits, the 

total average annual gross revenues for 

the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $1,945 per vessel. 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 

SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $189,414, while the 

shark fins would be $47,759. The total 

average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $237,173 

($189,414 + $47,759). There are 

approximately 64 directed shark permit 

holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $3,706 per vessel. Overall, 

Alternative C6 would lead to a lower 

quota in the northern Atlantic subregion, as compared to current landings 

under the higher base quota. However, 

NMFS prefers this alternative at this 

time because it accounts for the status 

of Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead 

sharks and takes into account all 

sources of mortality for both species and 

would continue to allow fishermen to 

land non-blacknose SCS at current 

levels. 

Under Alternative C7, NMFS would 

establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 

489.3 mt dw and increase the quota to 

the current adjusted base annual quota 

of 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). The 

economic impacts of Alternative C7 

would vary when combined with the 

other alternatives to establish subregional non-blacknose SCS quotas. 

Under Alternative C2, the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2 

percent of the total non-blacknose SCS 

quota (85.0 mt dw; 187,511 lb dw) and 

the southern Atlantic sub-region would 

receive 67.8 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota (179.1 mt dw; 

394,822 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 

for non-blacknose SCS meat in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$131,258, while the shark fins would be 

$33,096. Thus, total average annual 

gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $164,353 ($131,258 + 

$33,096). There are approximately 61 

directed shark permit holders in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on 

this number of individual permits, the 

total average annual gross revenues for 

the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $2,694 per vessel. 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 

SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $276,375, while the 

shark fins would be $69,686. The total 

average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $346,061 

($276,375 + $69,686). There are 

approximately 56 directed shark permit 

holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $6,179 per vessel. Sub-regional 

quotas under Alternatives C2 would 

lead to some slightly higher sub-regional 

quotas within the northern Atlantic subregion, as compared to Alternative C3 

and C4, and would result in short-term 

minor beneficial impacts, and 

ultimately long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts in the northern 

Atlantic sub-region, especially if there is 

no quota linkage to blacknose sharks in 

the northern Atlantic sub-region. 

Using the quotas considered under 

Alternative C7 and the sub-regional split 

considered under Alternatives C3 and 

C4 (preferred alternative), the northern 

Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3 

percent of the total non-blacknose SCS 

quota (80.0 mt dw; 176,447 lb dw), 

while the southern Atlantic sub-region 

would receive 69.7 percent of the total 

non-blacknose SCS quota (184.1 mt dw; 

405,886 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 

for non-blacknose SCS meat in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region would be 

$123,513, while the shark fins would be 

$31,143. The total average annual gross 

revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $154,656 ($123,513 + 

$31,143). There are approximately 53 

directed shark permit holders in the 

northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on 

this number of individual permits, the 

total average annual gross revenues for 

the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $2,918 per vessel. 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 

SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $284,120, while the 

shark fins would be $71,639. The total 

average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern 

Atlantic sub-region would be $355,759 

($284,120 + $71,639). There are 

approximately 64 directed shark permit 

holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of 

individual permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $5,559 per vessel. Overall, 

Alternative C7 would lead to the same 

quota in the northern Atlantic subregion, as compared to current landings 

under the higher base quota. However, 

NMFS does not prefer this alternative at 

this time, because it would cap the nonblacknose SCS commercial at a higher 

level than Alternative C6 and does not 

account for the uncertainties in the 

SEDAR 34 bonnethead stock 

assessment. 

Gulf of Mexico Regional and SubRegional Quotas 

Alternative D1, the No Action 

alternative, would maintain the current 

regional quotas and quota linkages in 

the Gulf of Mexico region and continue 

to allow harvest of hammerhead sharks 

throughout the entire Gulf of Mexico 

region. This alternative would likely 

result in short-term neutral direct 

socioeconomic impacts, because shark 

fishermen would continue to operate 

under current conditions, with shark 

fishermen continuing to fish at similar 

rates. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel 

prices, the annual gross revenues for the 

entire fleet from blacktip, aggregated 

LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the 

Gulf of Mexico region would be 

$440,365, while the shark fins would be 

$554,750. Thus, total average annual 

gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated 

LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the Gulf of Mexico region would be 

$995,115 ($440,365 + $554,750), which 

would be 21 percent of the entire shark 

fishery. There are approximately 90 

directed shark permit holders in the 

entire Gulf of Mexico, which would 

result in average annual gross revenues 

for all LCS species of $11,057 per vessel. 

For the non-blacknose SCS and 

blacknose shark landings, the annual 

gross revenues for the entire fleet from 

the meat would be $35,757, while the 

shark fins would be $58,495. The total 

average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS and blacknose shark 

landings in the Atlantic region were 

$94,252 ($35,757 + $58,495), which is 2 

percent of the entire revenue for the 

shark fishery. For the approximately 90 

directed shark permit holders in the 

entire Gulf of Mexico, this which would 

result in average annual gross revenues 

for all SCS species of $1,047 per vessel. 

However, this alternative would likely 

result in long-term minor adverse 

socioeconomic impacts. Negative 

impacts would be partly due to the 

continued negative effects of federal and 

state regulations related to shark finning 

and sale of shark fins, which have 

resulted in declining ex-vessel prices of 

fins since 2010, as well as continued 

changes in shark fishery management 

measures. In addition, under the No 

Action alternative the non-blacknose 

SCS quota would not be modified. This 

could potentially lead to negative 

socioeconomic impacts, since the nonblacknose SCS quotas could be 

increased based on the most recent 

stock assessment, as described in 

alternatives D5–D7 below. Additionally, 

under the current regulations, 

differences in regional season opening 

dates would impact the availability of 

quota remaining in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Florida fishermen begin fishing the LCS 

quotas in the beginning of the year, 

because sharks are in local waters. This 

puts Louisiana fishermen at a slight 

economic disadvantage, as they prefer to 

delay fishing in order to maximize 

fishing efforts during the religious 

holiday Lent when prices for shark meat 

are higher. Indirect short-term 

socioeconomic impacts resulting from 

any of the actions in Alternative D1 

would likely be neutral. The measures 

would maintain the status quo with 

respect to shark landings and fishing 

effort. However, this alternative would 

likely result in indirect long-term minor 

adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

Negative socioeconomic impacts and 

decreased revenues associated with 

financial hardships experienced by 

fishermen within the Gulf of Mexico 

shark fisheries would carry over to the 

dealers and supporting businesses they 

regularly interact with. In addition, this 

alternative would not achieve the goals 

of this rulemaking of increasing 

management flexibility to adapt to the 

changing needs of the Atlantic shark 

fisheries. 

Alternative D2 would apportion the 

Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for 

blacktip, aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead sharks along 89°00′ W 

Longitude into western and eastern subregional quotas. Establishing subregional quotas would provide 

flexibility in seasonal openings within 

the Gulf of Mexico region. Different 

seasonal openings within sub-regions 

would allow fishermen to maximize 

their fishing effort during periods when 

sharks migrate into local waters or 

during periods when sales of shark meat 

are increased (e.g., in Louisiana, during 

Lent). Drawing the regional boundary 

between the eastern and western subregions along 89°00′ W Long. (between 

fishing catch areas 11 and 12), would 

better geographically separate the 

fishing activities of the major fishing 

constituents in the Gulf of Mexico 

region (i.e., Louisiana and Florida), in 

contrast to the boundary in Alternative 

D3, as the general range of Louisiana 

fishermen does not extend beyond this 

boundary. Under this alternative, the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would receive 94.1 mt dw in blacktip 

shark, 87.0 mt dw in aggregated LCS, 

and 25.2 mt dw in hammerhead shark 

quotas. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel 

prices, the annual gross revenues for 

blacktip, aggregated LCS, and 

hammerhead shark meat in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be 

$203,868, while the shark fins would be 

$80,259. Thus, total average annual 

gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated 

LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in 

the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would be $284,127 ($203,868 + 

$80,259). There are approximately 66 

directed shark permit holders in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region. 

Based on this number of individual 

directed permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $4,305 per vessel. When compared to 

the other alternatives, the eastern Gulf 

of Mexico sub-region would have minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts under 

Alternative D2, because this alternative 

would result in the highest total average 

annual gross revenues for blacktip, 

aggregated LCS, and hammerhead 

sharks. 

In the western Gulf of Mexico subregion under alternative D2, fishermen 

would receive 65.7 percent of the total 

blacktip quota (180.2 mt dw; 397,239 lb 

dw), 42.5 percent of the total aggregated 

LCS quota (64.2 mt dw; 141,877 lb dw), 

and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead 

shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw). 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for blacktip, 

aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark 

meat in the eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion would be $236,497, while the 

shark fins would be $95,213. Thus, total 

average annual gross revenues for 

blacktip, aggregated LCS, and 

hammerhead shark landings in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would be $331,710 ($236,497 + 

$95,213). There are approximately 24 

directed shark permit holders in the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. 

Based on this number of individual 

directed permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $13,821 per vessel. The slight 

increase in the blacktip shark subregional quota in the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico sub-region, in comparison to 

Alternative D3, would result in direct 

short-term minor beneficial 

socioeconomic impacts. Over time, 

increased revenues gained from the 

additional blacktip shark sub-regional 

quota, as well as increased revenue 

associated with fishermen maximizing 

their fishing effort during periods when 

sharks migrate into local waters, could 

ultimately have direct long-term 

moderate beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts. Under this alternative the 

quota for hammerheads sharks in the 

western sub-region would be 0.1 mt dw, 

which would be very difficult for NMFS 

to monitor and control, possibly leading 

to the quota being overharvested. This 

small hammerhead quota could lead to 

the aggregated LCS season being closed 

very early, and thus fishermen losing 

revenues if they are not able to land the 

aggregated LCS species. Therefore, 

because this alternative does not take 

into consideration the quota linkages 

between aggregated LCS and 

hammerhead sharks, NMFS does not 

prefer this alternative. 

Alternative D3 would apportion the 

Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for 

blacktip, aggregated LCS, and 

hammerhead sharks along 88°00′ W 

Longitude into western and eastern subregional quotas. Under this alternative, 

the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would receive 31.2 percent of the total 

blacktip quota (85.6 mt dw; 188,643 lb 

dw), 53.2 percent of the total aggregated 

LCS quota (80.4 mt dw; 177,596 lb dw), 

and 99.4 percent of the total 

hammerhead shark quota (25.2 mt dw; 

55,388 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2667 

for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and 

hammerhead shark meat in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be 

$188,961, while the shark fins would be 

$74,417. Thus, total average annual 

gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated 

LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in 

the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would be $263,378 ($188,961 + 

$74,417). There are approximately 66 

directed shark permit holders in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region. 

Based on this number of individual 

directed permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $3,991 per vessel. When compared to 

the other alternatives, the eastern Gulf 

of Mexico sub-region would have minor 

adverse socioeconomic impacts under 

Alternative D3, because this alternative 

would result in lower total average 

annual gross revenues for blacktip, 

aggregated LCS, and hammerhead 

sharks. 

In the western Gulf of Mexico subregion under alternative D3, fishermen 

would receive 68.8 percent of the total 

blacktip quota (188.7 mt dw; 415,983 lb 

dw), 46.8 percent of the total aggregated 

LCS quota (70.8 mt dw; 156,232 lb dw), 

and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead 

shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw). 

Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the 

annual gross revenues for blacktip, 

aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark 

meat in the western Gulf of Mexico subregion would be $251,403, while the 

shark fins would be $101,055. Thus, 

total average annual gross revenues for 

blacktip, aggregated LCS, and 

hammerhead shark landings in the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would be $352,458 ($251,403 + 

$101,055). There are approximately 24 

directed shark permit holders in the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. 

Based on this number of individual 

directed permits, the total average 

annual gross revenues for the directed 

permit holders in this sub-region would 

be $14,686 per vessel. This alternative 

would have minor beneficial economic 

impacts for the western Gulf of Mexico 

sub-region fishermen when compared to 

other alternatives, because fishermen in 

the sub-region would receive a higher 

quota. This alternative would likely 

result in direct short-term minor 

beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct 

long-term moderate beneficial impacts. 

However, drawing the regional 

boundary between the eastern and 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions 

along 88°00′ W Long. (i.e., between 

fishing catch areas 10 and 11) may not 

reflect geographic differences in the 

distribution of major fishing 

constituents in the region (i.e., 

Louisiana and Florida) as well as the 

boundary in Alternative D2, as 

fishermen from Louisiana would be 

encouraged to fish in waters farther east 

than they historically occupied, which 

could create future user group conflicts 

within the region. Despite beneficial 

economic impacts associated with this 

alternative, NMFS does not prefer this 

alternative at this time because the split 

in Alternative D2 may reflect the 

distribution of fishing constituents 

better. 

Alternative D4, one of the preferred 

alternatives, would apportion the Gulf 

of Mexico regional quotas for blacktip, 

aggregated LCS, and hammerhead 

sharks along 89°00′ W Longitude into 

western and eastern sub-regional quotas 

and would maintain LCS quota linkages 

in the eastern sub-region of the Gulf of 

Mexico region, remove the LCS quota 

linkages in the western sub-region of the 

Gulf of Mexico region, and prohibit the 

harvest of hammerhead sharks in the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. 

Removing quota linkages within the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region 

would have beneficial socioeconomic 

impacts, as fishermen active in this 

region would be able to continuing 

fishing for aggregated LCS sharks 

without fishing activities in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico sub-region dictating the 

timing of the aggregated LCS fishery 

closure. Economic advantages 

associated with removing quota 

linkages, allowing the western Gulf of 

Mexico sub-region to land a larger 

number of aggregated LCS, would 

outweigh the income lost from 

prohibiting landings of hammerhead 

sharks, particularly considering that the 

estimated hammerhead quota for the 

western Gulf of Mexico would be 0.1 mt 

dw. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion, no socioeconomic impacts are 

expected by maintaining the quota 

linkages already in place for LCS. Thus, 

Alternative D4 would likely result in 

both direct and indirect short- and longterm neutral socioeconomic impacts 

across the entire Gulf of Mexico region, 

as increased revenues associated with 

increased flexibility with season 

opening dates as a result of 

implementing sub-regional quotas 

would be countered by potential losses 

from prohibiting landings of 

hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf 

of Mexico. Because Alternative D4 

would have neutral economic impacts, 

but still maintain the objective of 

providing flexibility of implementation 

of shark management measures through 

the region, NMFS prefers this 

alternative at this time. 

Under Alternative D5, NMFS would 

establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 

931.9 mt dw and maintain the current 

base annual quota of 45.5 mt dw 

(100,317 lb dw). This alternative would 

likely result in moderate adverse 

socioeconomic impacts, due to the 

quota being capped at a lower level than 

what the SEDAR 34 stock assessment 

indicated was sustainable. Based on the 

2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross 

revenues for non-blacknose SCS and 

blacknose shark meat in the Gulf of 

Mexico region would be $32,101, while 

the shark fins would be $55,977. Thus, 

total average annual gross revenues for 

non-blacknose SCS landings would be 

$88,078 ($32,101 + $55,977). There are 

approximately 90 directed shark permit 

holders in the entire Gulf of Mexico, 

which would result in average annual 

gross revenues for all SCS species of 

$979 per vessel. When compared to 

Alternative D6, the preferred alternative, 

this alternative would result in $44,040 

($132,118¥$88,078) less in total gross 

annual revenue, or $489 less per vessel. 

In addition, the smaller quota under 

Alternative D5 could lead to shorter 

seasons, when compared to 2013 

landings. For these reasons, NMFS does 

not prefer this alternative at this time. 

Under Alternative D6, the preferred 

alternative, NMFS would establish a 

non-blacknose SCS TAC of 954.7 mt dw 

and increase the quota to the current 

adjusted annual quota of 68.3 mt dw 

(150,476 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 

for non-blacknose SCS meat in the Gulf 

of Mexico region would be $48,152, 

while the shark fins would be $83,966. 

Thus, total average annual gross 

revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings would be $132,118 ($48,152 + 

$83,966). There are approximately 90 

directed shark permit holders in the 

entire Gulf of Mexico, which would 

result in average annual gross revenues 

for all SCS species of $1,468 per vessel. 

NMFS prefers this alternative at this 

time because it would increase the nonblacknose SCS commercial quota above 

the current base quota and provide 

fishermen with additional opportunities 

to profit from landing non-blacknose 

SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region, 

compared to the quota considered under 

Alternative D5, while also taking into 

account uncertainties in SEDAR 34, as 

well as the unknown status of 

bonnethead sharks. 

Under Alternative D7, would 

establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 

1,064.9 mt dw and increase the quota to 

178.5 mt dw (393,566 lb dw). Under this 

alternative, the commercial quota would 

be increased to twice the current 2013 

landings, which is almost four times the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

current base annual quota for nonblacknose SCS. Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues 

for non-blacknose SCS meat in the Gulf 

of Mexico region would be $125,941, 

while the shark fins would be $219,610. 

Thus, total average annual gross 

revenues for non-blacknose SCS 

landings would be $345,551 ($125,941 + 

$219,610). There are approximately 90 

directed shark permit holders in the 

entire Gulf of Mexico, which would 

result in average annual gross revenues 

for all LCS species of $3,839 per vessel. 

The quota considered under this 

alternative would result in an increase 

of $213,433 ($345,551 ¥ $132,118) in 

annual revenues or an increase of 

$2,371 per vessel, over the quota 

considered in preferred Alternative D6. 

However, as mentioned above, NMFS 

anticipates that it is not likely that 

fishermen would economically benefit 

from the non-blacknose SCS quota 

considered under Alternative D7, since 

the linkage with the blacknose quota 

would be maintained, and therefore the 

non-blacknose SCS fishery would likely 

be closed based on the blacknose quota 

before the full non-blacknose SCS quota 

could be landed. For this reason, and 

because there are uncertainties 

associated with the SEDAR 34 stock 

assessments, NMFS does not prefer this 

alternative at this time. 

Upgrading Restrictions 

Under Alternative E1, the No Action 

alternative, NMFS would maintain the 

current upgrading restrictions in place 

for shark limited access permit holders. 

Thus, shark limited access permit 

holders would continue to be limited to 

upgrading a vessel or transferring a 

permit only if it does not result in an 

increase in horsepower of more than 20 

percent or an increase of more than 10 

percent overall, gross registered 

tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel 

baseline specifications. The No Action 

alternative could result in direct and 

indirect minor adverse socioeconomic 

impacts if fishermen continue to be 

constrained by limits on horsepower 

and vessel size increases. Fishermen 

would also be limited by these 

upgrading restrictions when buying, 

selling, or transferring shark directed 

limited access permits. Because the No 

Action alternative provides fishermen 

with less operational flexibility, NMFS 

does not prefer this alternative at this 

time. 

Alternative E2, a preferred alternative, 

would remove current upgrading 

restrictions for shark directed permit 

holders. Eliminating these restrictions 

would have short- and long-term minor 

beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since 

it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or 

transfer shark directed permits without 

worrying about the 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 vessel baseline 

specifications. In addition, the upgrade 

restriction for shark permit holders was 

implemented to match the upgrading 

restrictions for the Northeast 

multispecies permits. NMFS is currently 

considering removing the upgrading 

restrictions for the Northeast 

multispecies permits, and if those are 

removed, then removing the upgrading 

restrictions for shark directed permit 

holders could aid in maintaining 

consistency for fishermen who hold 

multiple permits. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Penalties, Permits and fees, Commercial 

retention limits, Quotas. 

Dated: January 12, 2015. 

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 proposed 

to be 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 § 635.2, the ‘‘Management 

group’’ definition is added in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 635.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Management group in regard to sharks 

means a group of shark species that are 

combined for quota management 

purposes. A management group may be 

split by region and sub-region, as 

defined at § 635.27(b)(1). A fishery for a 

management group can be opened or 

closed as a whole or at the regional or 

sub-regional levels. Sharks have the 

following management groups: Atlantic 

aggregated LCS, Gulf of Mexico 

aggregated LCS, research LCS, 

hammerhead, Atlantic non-blacknose 

SCS, Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS, 

and pelagic sharks other than blue or 

porbeagle. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 635.4, revise paragraphs (l)(2)(i) 

and the introductory text of paragraph 

(l)(2)(ii), and remove paragraph (l)(2)(x) 

to read as follows: 

§ 635.4 Permits and fees. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Subject to the restrictions on 

upgrading the harvesting capacity of 

permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) 

of this section, as applicable, and to the 

limitations on ownership of permitted 

vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this 

section, an owner may transfer a shark 

or swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit to another 

vessel that he or she owns or to another 

person. Directed handgear LAPs for 

swordfish may be transferred to another 

vessel or to another person but only for 

use with handgear and subject to the 

upgrading restrictions in paragraph 

(l)(2)(ii) of this section and the 

limitations on ownership of permitted 

vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this 

section. Shark directed and incidental 

LAPs and swordfish incidental LAPs are 

not subject to the upgrading 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(l)(2)(ii) of this section. Shark and 

swordfish incidental LAPs are not 

subject to the ownership requirements 

specified in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this 

section. 

(ii) An owner may upgrade a vessel 

with a swordfish LAP or an Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit, or 

transfer such permit to another vessel or 

to another person, and be eligible to 

retain or renew such permit 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 vessel baseline specifications. A 

vessel owner that concurrently held a 

directed or incidental swordfish LAP, a 

directed or incidental shark LAP, and an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

as of August 6, 2007, is eligible to 

increase the vessel size or transfer the 

permits to another vessel as long as any 

increase in the three specifications of 

vessel size (length overall, gross 

registered tonnage, and net tonnage) 

does not exceed 35 percent of the vessel 

baseline specifications, as defined in 

paragraph (l)(2)(ii)(A) of this section; 

horsepower for those eligible vessels is 

not limited for purposes of vessel 

upgrades or permit transfers. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 635.24, paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(3) are revised and paragraphs (a)(4)(v) 

and (vi) are added to read as follows: 

§ 635.24 Commercial retention limits for 

sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2669 

(2) Except as noted in paragraphs 

(a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this section, a 

person who owns or operates a vessel 

that has been issued a directed LAP for 

sharks and does not have a valid shark 

research permit, or a person who owns 

or operates a vessel that has been issued 

a directed LAP for sharks and that has 

been issued a shark research permit but 

does not have a NMFS-approved 

observer on board, may retain, possess, 

or land no more than 55 LCS other than 

sandbar sharks per vessel per trip if the 

respective LCS management group(s) is 

open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Such 

persons may not retain, possess, or land 

sandbar sharks. 

(3) Except as noted in paragraphs 

(a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this section, a 

person who owns or operates a vessel 

that has been issued an incidental LAP 

for sharks and does not have a valid 

shark research permit, or a person who 

owns or operates a vessel that has been 

issued an incidental LAP for sharks and 

that has been issued a valid shark 

research permit but does not have a 

NMFS-approved observer on board, may 

retain, possess, or land no more than 3 

LCS other than sandbar sharks per 

vessel per trip if the respective LCS 

management group(s) is open per 

§§ 635.27 and 635.28. Such persons may 

not retain, possess, or land sandbar 

sharks. 

(4) * * * 

(v) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued a shark LAP 

and is operating in the western Gulf of 

Mexico sub-region, as defined at 

§ 635.27(b)(1)(ii), may not retain, 

possess, land, or sell any hammerhead 

sharks. 

(vi) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued a shark LAP 

and is operating in the northern Atlantic 

sub-region, as defined at 

§ 635.27(b)(1)(i), may not retain, 

possess, land, or sell any blacknose 

sharks. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 635.27: 

■ a. Paragraph (b)(1) as proposed to be 

amended at 79 FR 46217, August 7, 

2014, is further revised; and 

■ b. Paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, 

and paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), 

(b)(2)(iii) introductory text, and (b)(3) 

introductory text are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.27 Quotas. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sharks. (1) Commercial quotas. 

The commercial quotas for sharks 

specified in this section apply to all 

sharks harvested from the management 

unit. Sharks taken and landed 

commercially from state waters, even by 

fishermen without Federal shark 

permits, must be counted against the 

appropriate commercial quota. Any of 

the base quotas listed below, including 

regional and/or sub-regional base 

quotas, may be adjusted per paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. Any sharks landed 

commercially as ‘‘unclassified’’ will be 

counted against the appropriate quota 

based on the species composition 

calculated from data collected by 

observers on non-research trips and/or 

dealer data. No prohibited sharks, 

including parts or pieces of prohibited 

sharks, which are listed under heading 

D of Table 1 of Appendix A to this part, 

may be retained except as authorized 

under § 635.32. For the purposes of this 

section, the boundary between the Gulf 

of Mexico region and the Atlantic region 

is defined as a line beginning on the east 

coast of Florida at the mainland at 

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

Any water and land to the south and 

west of that boundary is considered, for 

the purposes of quota monitoring and 

setting of quotas, to be within the Gulf 

of Mexico region. Any water and land 

to the north and east of that boundary, 

for the purposes of quota monitoring 

and setting of quotas, is considered to be 

within the Atlantic region. 

(i) Commercial quotas that apply only 

in the Atlantic Region. The commercial 

quotas specified in this paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) apply only to those species of 

sharks and management groups within 

the management unit that were 

harvested in the Atlantic region, as 

defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. The Atlantic region is further 

split into northern and southern 

Atlantic sub-regions along 34°00′ N. lat., 

which is near Wilmington, North 

Carolina. All fish harvested within the 

Atlantic region in fishing catch areas in 

waters north of 34°00′ N. lat. are 

considered to be from the northern 

Atlantic sub-region, and all fish 

harvested within the Atlantic region in 

fishing catch areas in waters south of 

34°00′ N. lat. are considered to be from 

the southern Atlantic sub-region. 

(A) Atlantic aggregated LCS. The base 

annual commercial quota for Atlantic 

aggregated LCS is 168.9 mt dw. The 

northern Atlantic sub-region base quota 

is 33.3 mt dw (19.7% of the Atlantic 

region base quota) and southern Atlantic 

sub-region base quota is 135.6 mt dw 

(80.3% of the Atlantic region base 

quota). 

(B) Atlantic hammerhead sharks. The 

regional base annual commercial quota 

for hammerhead sharks caught in the 

Atlantic region is 27.1 mt dw (51.7% of 

the overall base quota established in 

paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section). The 

northern Atlantic sub-region base quota 

is 9.2 mt dw (34.1% of this regional base 

quota) and southern Atlantic sub-region 

base quota is 17.9 mt dw (65.9% of this 

regional base quota). 

(C) Atlantic non-blacknose SCS. The 

base annual commercial quota for 

Atlantic non-blacknose SCS is 176.1 mt 

dw. The northern Atlantic sub-region 

base quota is 53.4 mt dw (30.3% of the 

Atlantic region base quota) and southern 

Atlantic sub-region base quota is 123.7 

mt dw (69.7% of the Atlantic region 

base quota). 

(D) Atlantic blacknose sharks. The 

base annual commercial quota for 

Atlantic blacknose sharks is 18 mt dw. 

The northern Atlantic sub-region base 

quota is 0.0 mt dw (0.0% of the Atlantic 

region base quota) and southern Atlantic 

sub-region base quota is 16.7 mt dw 

(95.5% of the Atlantic region base 

quota). 

(ii) Commercial quotas that apply 

only in the Gulf of Mexico Region. The 

commercial quotas specified in this 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) apply only to those 

species of sharks and management 

groups within the management unit that 

were harvested in the Gulf of Mexico 

region, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. The Gulf of Mexico region 

is further split into western and eastern 

Gulf of Mexico sub-regions by a 

boundary that is drawn along 89°00′ W. 

long., but that circumvents the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Breton National 

Wildlife Refuge at 29°30′ N. lat., 89° W. 

long.; then proceeds to 30°23′ N. lat., 

89° W. long.; before returning to 89°00’ 

W. long. All fish harvested within the 

Gulf of Mexico region in fishing catch 

areas in waters westward of 89°00′ W. 

long. are considered to be from the 

western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and 

all fish harvested within the Gulf of 

Mexico region in fishing catch areas in 

waters east of 89°00′ W. long., including 

within the Caribbean Sea, are 

considered to be from the eastern Gulf 

of Mexico sub-region. 

(A) Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS. 

The base annual commercial quota for 

Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS is 157.3 

mt dw. The eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 87.0 mt dw (57.5% 

of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota) 

and the western Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 64.2 mt dw (42.5% 

of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota). 

(B) Gulf of Mexico hammerhead 

sharks. The regional base annual 

commercial quota for hammerhead 

sharks caught in the Gulf of Mexico 

region is 25.3 mt dw (48.3% of the 

overall base quota established in 

paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section). The 

eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region base 

quota is 25.2 mt dw (99.4% of this 

regional base quota) and western Gulf of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Mexico sub-region base quota is 0.0 mt 

dw (0.0% of this regional base quota). 

(C) Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks. 

The base annual commercial quota for 

Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks is 256.6 

mt dw. The eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 180.2 mt dw (34.3% 

of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota) 

and the western Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 94.1 mt dw (65.7% 

of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota). 

(D) Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose 

SCS. The base annual commercial quota 

for Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS is 

68.3 mt dw. This base quota is not split 

between the eastern and western Gulf of 

Mexico sub-regions. 

(E) Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks. 

The base annual commercial quota for 

Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks is 2.0 

mt dw. This base quota is not split 

between the eastern and western Gulf of 

Mexico sub-regions. 

(iii) Commercial quotas that apply in 

all regions. The commercial quotas 

specified in this section apply to any 

sharks or management groups within 

the management unit that were 

harvested in either the Atlantic or Gulf 

of Mexico regions. 

(A) Sandbar sharks. The base annual 

commercial quota for sandbar sharks is 

75.7 mt dw. This quota, as adjusted per 

paragragh (b)(2) of this section, is 

available only to the owners of 

commercial shark vessels that have been 

issued a valid shark research permit and 

that have a NMFS-approved observer 

onboard. 

(B) Research LCS. The base annual 

commercial quota for Research LCS is 

50 mt dw. This quota, as adjusted per 

paragragh (b)(2) of this section, is 

available only to the owners of 

commercial shark vessels that have been 

issued a valid shark research permit and 

that have a NMFS-approved observer 

onboard. 

(C) Hammerhead sharks. The overall 

base annual commercial quota for 

hammerhead sharks is 52.4 mt dw. This 

overall base quota is further split for 

management purposes between the 

regions defined in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

and (b)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(D) Pelagic sharks. The base annual 

commercial quotas for pelagic sharks are 

273.0 mt dw for blue sharks, 1.7 mt dw 

for porbeagle sharks, and 488.0 mt dw 

for pelagic sharks other than blue sharks 

or porbeagle sharks. 

(E) Smoothhound sharks. The base 

annual commercial quota for 

smoothhound sharks is 1782.2 mt dw. 

(2) Annual and inseason adjustments 

of commercial quotas. NMFS will 

publish in the Federal Register any 

annual or inseason adjustments to the 

base annual commercial overall, 

regional, or sub-regional quotas. No 

quota will be available, and the fishery 

will not open, until any adjustments are 

published in the Federal Register and 

effective. Within a fishing year or at the 

start of a fishing year, NMFS may 

transfer quotas between regions and 

sub-regions of the same species or 

management group, as appropriate, 

based on the criteria in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(i) Annual overharvest adjustments. 

(A) Adjustments of annual overall 

and regional base quotas. Except as 

noted in this section, if any of the 

available commercial base or adjusted 

overall quotas or regional quotas, as 

described in this section, is exceeded in 

any fishing year, NMFS will deduct an 

amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) 

from the base overall or regional quota 

the following fishing year or, depending 

on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS 

may deduct from the overall or regional 

base quota an amount equivalent to the 

overharvest(s) spread over a number of 

subsequent fishing years to a maximum 

of five years. If the blue shark quota is 

exceeded, NMFS will reduce the annual 

commercial quota for pelagic sharks by 

the amount that the blue shark quota is 

exceeded prior to the start of the next 

fishing year or, depending on the level 

of overharvest(s), deduct an amount 

equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread 

over a number of subsequent fishing 

years to a maximum of five years. 

(B) Adjustments to sub-regional 

quotas. If a sub-regional quota is 

exceeded but the regional quota is not, 

NMFS will not reduce the annual 

regional base quota the following year 

and sub-regional quotas will be 

determined as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. If both a subregional quota(s) and the regional quota 

are exceeded, for each sub-region in 

which an overharvest occurred, NMFS 

will deduct an amount equivalent to 

that sub-region’s overharvest from that 

sub-region’s quota the following fishing 

year or, depending on the level of 

overharvest, NMFS may deduct from 

that sub-region’s base quota an amount 

equivalent to the overharvest spread 

over a number of subsequent fishing 

years to a maximum of five years. 

(C) Adjustments to quotas when the 

species or management group is split 

into regions or sub-regions for 

management purposes and not as a 

result of a stock assessment. If a regional 

quota for a species that is split into 

regions for management purposes only 

is exceeded but the overall quota is not, 

NMFS will not reduce the overall base 

quota for that species or management 

group the following year and the 

regional quota will be determined as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. If both a regional quota(s) and 

the overall quota is exceeded, for each 

region in which an overharvest 

occurred, NMFS will deduct an amount 

equivalent to that region’s overharvest 

from that region’s quota the following 

fishing year or, depending on the level 

of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct 

from that region’s base quota an amount 

equivalent to the overharvest spread 

over a number of subsequent fishing 

years to a maximum of five years. If a 

sub-regional quota of a species or 

management group that is split into 

regions for management purposes only 

is exceeded, NMFS will follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph 

(b)(2)(i)(B) of this section. 

(ii) Annual underharvest adjustments. 

Except as noted in this paragraph, if any 

of the annual base or adjusted quotas, 

including regional quotas, as described 

in this section is not harvested, NMFS 

may adjust the annual base quota, 

including regional quotas, depending on 

the status of the stock or management 

group. If a species or a specific species 

within a management group is declared 

to be overfished, to have overfishing 

occurring, or to have an unknown 

status, NMFS may not adjust the 

following fishing year’s base quota, 

including regional quota, for any 

underharvest, and the following fishing 

year’s quota will be equal to the base 

annual quota. If the species or all 

species in a management group is not 

declared to be overfished, to have 

overfishing occurring, or to have an 

unknown status, NMFS may increase 

the following year’s base annual quota, 

including regional quota, by an 

equivalent amount of the underharvest 

up to 50 percent above the base annual 

quota. Except as noted in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section, underharvests 

are not transferable between regions, 

species, and/or management groups. 

(iii) Determination criteria for 

inseason and annual quota transfers 

between regions and sub-regions. 

Inseason or annual quota transfers of 

quotas between regions or sub-regions 

may be conducted only for species or 

management groups where the species 

are the same between regions or subregions and the quota is split between 

regions or sub-regions for management 

purposes and not as a result of a stock 

assessment. Before making any inseason 

or annual quota transfer between 

regions or sub-regions, NMFS will 

consider the following criteria and other 

relevant factors: 

* * * * * 

(3) Opening commercial fishing 

season criteria. NMFS will file with the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2671 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication notification of the opening 

dates of the overall, regional, and subregional shark fisheries for each species 

and management group. Before making 

any decisions, NMFS would consider 

the following criteria and other relevant 

factors in establishing the opening 

dates: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 635.28, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 635.28 Fishery closures. 

* * * * * 

(b) Sharks. (1) A shark fishery that 

meets any of the following 

circumstances is closed and subject to 

the requirements of § 635.28(b)(6): 

(i) No overall, regional, and/or subregional quota, as applicable, is 

specified at § 635.27(b)(1); 

(ii) The overall, regional, and/or subregional quota, as applicable, specified 

at § 635.27(b)(1) is zero; 

(iii) After accounting for overharvests 

as specified at § 635.27(b)(2), the 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quota, as applicable, is determined to be 

zero or close to zero and NMFS has 

closed the fishery by publication of a 

notice in the Federal Register; 

(iv) The species is a prohibited 

species as listed under Table 1 of 

Appendix A of this part; or 

(v) Landings of the species and/or 

management group meet the 

requirements specified in § 635.28(b)(2) 

through (5) and NMFS has closed the 

fishery by publication of a notice in the 

Federal Register. 

(2) Non-linked quotas: If the overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota of a 

species or management group is not 

linked to another species or 

management group and that overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota is 

available as specified by a publication 

in the Federal Register, then that 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

commercial fishery for the shark species 

or management group will open as 

specified in § 635.27(b). When NMFS 

calculates that the overall, regional, 

and/or sub-regional landings for a shark 

species and/or management group, as 

specified in § 635.27(b)(1), has reached 

or is projected to reach 80 percent of the 

available overall, regional, and/or subregional quota as specified in 

§ 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for 

publication with the Office of the 

Federal Register a notice of an overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional closure, as 

applicable, for that shark species and/or 

shark management group that will be 

effective no fewer than 5 days from date 

of filing. From the effective date and 

time of the closure until NMFS 

announces, via the publication of a 

notice in the Federal Register, that 

additional overall, regional, and/or subregional quota is available and the 

season is reopened, the overall, regional, 

and/or sub-regional fisheries for that 

shark species or management group are 

closed, even across fishing years. 

(3) Linked Quotas: As specified in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quotas of some shark species and/or 

management groups are linked to the 

overall, regional, and/or sub-regional 

quotas of other shark species and/or 

management groups. For each pair of 

linked species and/or management 

groups, if the overall, regional, and/or 

sub-regional quota specified in 

§ 635.27(b)(1) is available for both of the 

linked species and/or management 

groups as specified by a publication in 

the Federal Register, then the overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional 

commercial fishery for both of the 

linked species and/or management 

groups will open as specified in 

§ 635.27(b)(1). When NMFS calculates 

that the overall, regional, and/or subregional landings for any species and/or 

management group of a linked group 

has reached or is projected to reach 80 

percent of the available overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional quota as 

specified in § 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will 

file for publication with the Office of the 

Federal Register a notice of an overall, 

regional, and/or sub-regional closure for 

all of the species and/or management 

groups in that linked group that will be 

effective no fewer than 5 days from date 

of filing. From the effective date and 

time of the closure until NMFS 

announces, via the publication of a 

notice in the Federal Register, that 

additional overall, regional, and/or subregional quota is available and the 

season is reopened, the overall, regional, 

and/or sub-regional fishery for all 

species and/or management groups in 

that linked group is closed, even across 

fishing years. 

(4) The quotas of the following 

species and/or management groups are 

linked: 

(i) Northern Atlantic hammerhead 

sharks and northern Atlantic aggregated 

LCS. 

(ii) Southern Atlantic hammerhead 

sharks and southern Atlantic aggregated 

LCS. 

(iii) Eastern Gulf of Mexico 

hammerhead sharks and eastern Gulf of 

Mexico aggregated LCS. 

(iv) Southern Atlantic blacknose 

sharks and southern Atlantic nonblacknose SCS. 

(v) Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks 

and Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS. 

(5) NMFS may close the regional or 

sub-regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip 

shark management group(s) before 

landings reach, or are expected to reach, 

80 percent of the quota. Before taking 

any inseason action, NMFS will 

consider the following criteria and other 

relevant factors: 

(i) Estimated Gulf of Mexico blacktip 

shark season length based on available 

sub-regional quotas and average subregional weekly catch rates during the 

current fishing year and from previous 

years; 

(ii) Variations in regional and/or subregional seasonal distribution, 

abundance, or migratory patterns of 

blacktip sharks, hammerhead sharks, 

and aggregated LCS based on scientific 

and fishery information; 

(iii) Effects of the adjustment on 

accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP and its 

amendments; 

(iv) The amount of remaining shark 

quotas in the relevant sub-regions, to 

date, based on dealer or other reports; 

and, 

(v) The regional and/or sub-regional 

catch rates of the relevant shark species 

or management group(s), to date, based 

on dealer or other reports. 

(6) When the overall, regional, and/or 

sub-regional fishery for a shark species 

and/or management group is closed, a 

fishing vessel, issued a Federal Atlantic 

commercial shark permit pursuant to 

§ 635.4, may not possess, retain, land, or 

sell a shark of that species and/or 

management group that was caught 

within the closed region or sub-region, 

except under the conditions specified in 

§ 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel 

possesses a valid shark research permit 

under § 635.32, a NMFS-approved 

observer is onboard, and the sandbar 

and/or Research LCS fishery, as 

applicable, is open. A shark dealer, 

issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4, may 

not purchase or receive a shark of that 

species and/or management group that 

was caught within the closed region or 

sub-region from a vessel issued a 

Federal Atlantic commercial shark 

permit, except that a permitted shark 

dealer or processor may possess sharks 

that were caught in the closed region or 

sub-region that were harvested, offloaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, 

prior to the effective date of the closure 

and were held in storage. Under a 

closure for a shark species or 

management group, a shark dealer, 

issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may, 

in accordance with State regulations, 

purchase or receive a shark of that 

species or management group if the 

shark was harvested, off-loaded, and 

sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

that fishes only in State waters and that 

has not been issued a Federal Atlantic 

commercial shark permit, HMS Angling 

permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat 

permit pursuant to § 635.4. 

Additionally, under an overall, a 

regional, or a sub-regional closure for a 

shark species and/or management 

group, a shark dealer, issued a permit 

pursuant to § 635.4, may purchase or 

receive a shark of that species group if 

the sandbar or Research LCS fishery, as 

applicable, is open and the shark was 

harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, 

or bartered from a vessel issued a valid 

shark research permit (per § 635.32) that 

had a NMFS-approved observer on 

board during the trip the shark was 

collected. 

(7) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category quota is closed as specified in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels 

that have pelagic longline gear on board 

cannot possess, retain, land, or sell 

sharks. 

* * * * * 

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

(4) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and 

purchase. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Persons that own or operate a 

vessel that possesses, retains, or lands a 

shark from the management unit may 

sell such shark only if the vessel has a 

valid commercial shark permit issued 

under this part. Persons may possess, 

retain, land, and sell a shark only to a 

federally-permitted dealer and only 

when the fishery for that species, 

management group, region, and/or subregion has not been closed, as specified 

in § 635.28(b). Persons that own or 

operate a vessel that has pelagic 

longline gear onboard can possess, 

retain, land, and sell a shark only if the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category has 

not been closed, as specified in 

§ 635.28(a). 

* * * * * 

(4) Only dealers who have a valid 

Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit and 

who have submitted reports to NMFS 

according to reporting requirements of 

§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark 

from an owner or operator of a vessel 

that has, or is required to have, a valid 

Federal Atlantic commercial shark 

permit issued under this part. Dealers 

may purchase a shark only from an 

owner or operator of a vessel who has 

a valid commercial shark permit issued 

under this part, except that dealers may 

purchase a shark from an owner or 

operator of a vessel who does not have 

a Federal Atlantic commercial shark 

permit if that vessel fishes exclusively 

in state waters and does not possess a 

HMS Angling permit or HMS Charter/

Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4. 

Atlantic shark dealers may purchase a 

sandbar shark only from an owner or 

operator of a vessel who has a valid 

shark research permit and who had a 

NMFS-approved observer onboard the 

vessel for the trip in which the sandbar 

shark was collected. Atlantic shark 

dealers may purchase a shark from an 

owner or operator of a fishing vessel 

who has a valid commercial shark 

permit issued under this part only when 

the fishery for that species, management 

group, region, and/or sub-region has not 

been closed, as specified in § 635.28(b). 

Atlantic shark dealers may first receive 

a shark from a vessel that has pelagic 

longline gear onboard only if the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category has 

not been closed, as specified in 

§ 635.28(a). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 635.34, paragraphs (a) and (b) 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.34 Adjustment of management 

measures. 

(a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares 

or resultant allocations for bluefin tuna, 

as specified in § 635.15; catch limits for 

bluefin tuna, as specified in § 635.23; 

the overall, regional, and/or subregional quotas for bluefin tuna, sharks, 

swordfish, and northern albacore tuna 

as specified in § 635.27; the retention 

limits for sharks, as specified at 

§ 635.24; the regional retention limits 

for Swordfish General Commercial 

permit holders, as specified at § 635.24; 

the marlin landing limit, as specified in 

§ 635.27(d); and the minimum sizes for 

Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and 

roundscale spearfish as specified in 

§ 635.20. 

(b) In accordance with the framework 

procedures in the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or 

modify for species or species groups of 

Atlantic HMS the following 

management measures: Maximum 

sustainable yield or optimum yield 

based on the latest stock assessment or 

updates in the SAFE report; domestic 

quotas; recreational and commercial 

retention limits, including target catch 

requirements; size limits; fishing years 

or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions, 

or regional and/or sub-regional quotas; 

species in the management unit and the 

specification of the species groups to 

which they belong; species in the 

prohibited shark species group; 

classification system within shark 

species groups; permitting and reporting 

requirements; workshop requirements; 

the IBQ shares or resultant allocations 

for bluefin tuna; administration of the 

IBQ program (including but not limited 

to requirements pertaining to leasing of 

IBQ allocations, regional or minimum 

IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps 

(individual or by category), permanent 

sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); 

time/area restrictions; allocations among 

user groups; gear prohibitions, 

modifications, or use restriction; effort 

restrictions; observer coverage 

requirements; EM requirements; 

essential fish habitat; and actions to 

implement ICCAT recommendations, as 

appropriate. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 635.71, paragraphs (d)(3) and 

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

§ 635.71 Prohibitions 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

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

a species or management group when 

the fishery for that species, management 

group, region, and/or sub-region is 

closed, as specified in § 635.28(b). 

(4) Sell or purchase a shark of a 

species or management group when the 

fishery for that species, management 

group, region, and/or sub-region is 

closed, as specified in § 635.28(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In Appendix A to Part 635, Section 

B of Table 1 is revised to read as 

follows: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2673 

Appendix A to Part 635—Species 

Tables 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 635—OCEANIC SHARKS

*******

B. Small Coastal Sharks. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Atlantic sharpnose, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico blacknose, Carcharhinus acronotus. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo. 

Finetooth, Carcharhinus isodon. 

*******

[FR Doc. 2015–00548 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS