[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36892-36921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17498]



[[Page 36891]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Parts 229, 600, and 635



Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; 
Amendment 3; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 36892]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 229, 600, and 635

[Docket No. 080519678-8685-01]
RIN 0648-AW65


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management 
Measures; Amendment 3

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 
amendment; request for comments; public hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the draft Amendment 3 to 
the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 3 examines different management 
alternatives available to rebuild blacknose sharks consistent with the 
2007 small coastal shark (SCS) stock assessment, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and 
other applicable law. Amendment 3 also examines management alternatives 
to end overfishing of blacknose sharks and shortfin mako sharks, 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and also proposes adding 
smooth dogfish under NMFS management. The proposed rule to implement 
Amendment 3 would, among other things, establish a quota for blacknose 
sharks and non-blacknose SCS, prohibit the use of gillnet gear to catch 
sharks from South Carolina south, prohibit the retention of blacknose 
sharks in recreational fisheries, take action at the international 
level to end overfishing of shortfin mako through participation in 
appropriate international fisheries organizations, such as 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
(ICCAT), promote the live release of shortfin mako sharks, add smooth 
dogfish under NMFS management, establish a commercial quota for smooth 
dogfish, require smooth dogfish fishermen to obtain the appropriate 
Federal permit, and establish a mechanism for specifying Annual Catch 
Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) for Atlantic sharks. 
These changes could affect all fishermen, commercial and recreational, 
who fish for sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Caribbean Sea.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule, draft Amendment 3 and draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and related analyses must be 
received no later than 5 p.m. on September 22, 2009. NMFS will hold 
nine public hearings on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 3 in 
August and September 2009. For specific dates and times see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be held in New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and 
Louisiana. For specific locations see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of 
this document.
    Written comments on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 3 may be 
submitted to Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Highly Migratory Species Management 
Division:
    <bullet> Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
Please mark the outside of the envelope Shark Amendment 3 comments.
    <bullet> Fax: 301-713-1917.
    <bullet> Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to Portal http://www.regulations.gov 
without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, 
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be 
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``n/a'' in the required 
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic 
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 
Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of the draft Amendment 3 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, 
including the DEIS, the latest shark stock assessments, and other 
documents relevant to this rule are available from the Highly Migratory 
Species Management Division Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by contacting LeAnn Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karyl Brewster-Geisz or LeAnn 
Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917 or Jackie Wilson at 
240-338-3936 or fax 404-806-9188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. In 1999, NMFS revised the 1993 FMP and included 
swordfish and tunas in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and 
Sharks (1999 FMP). The 1999 FMP was amended in 2003, and in 2006, NMFS 
consolidated the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and shark FMP and its 
amendments and the Atlantic billfish FMP and its amendments in the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP. This amendment amends the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP. The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments 
are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
    On May 7, 2008, NMFS announced its determination that blacknose 
sharks are overfished with overfishing occurring while Atlantic 
sharpnose sharks, bonnethead sharks, and finetooth sharks are not 
overfished and do not have overfishing occurring (73 FR 25665). These 
determinations were based on the results of the 2007 SCS stock 
assessment, which was conducted in a manner similar to the Southeast 
Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process that is used by the South 
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. 
NMFS has found that this 2007 SCS stock assessment is the best 
available science regarding the status of SCS. The status determination 
criteria that are used to determine the status of Atlantic HMS are 
fully described in Chapter 3 of the 1999 FMP and are not repeated here.
    NMFS has also determined that blue shark stocks are not overfished 
and overfishing is not occurring and that shortfin mako shark stocks 
are not overfished, are approaching an overfished condition, and have 
overfishing occurring. These determinations are based on international 
stock assessments conducted by the ICCAT's Standing Committee for 
Research and Science (SCRS). While these assessments are international, 
the status determination criteria are the same as those used for SCS 
and all Atlantic sharks. NMFS has determined the ICCAT stock assessment 
to be the best available science for managing shortfin mako and blue 
sharks.
    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to establish a 
rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks and to end overfishing for 
blacknose and shortfin mako sharks. NMFS announced its intent to 
conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) on May 7, 2008 (73 FR 
25665), and held

[[Page 36893]]

five scoping meetings in 2008 (73 FR 37932, July 2, 2008; 73 FR 53407, 
September 13, 2008). During scoping, NMFS also consulted with the HMS 
Advisory Panel in October 2008 (73 FR 53407, September 13, 2008), the 
five Regional Fishery Management Councils on the east coast, and the 
Atlantic States and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. NMFS also 
presented information at a bycatch reduction workshop that was held by 
the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation. In February 2009, 
NMFS presented the Predraft of Amendment 3 to the HMS Advisory Panel 
(73 FR 67135, November 13, 2008).
    Based in part on the comments received during scoping and from the 
HMS Advisory Panel on the Predraft, NMFS proposes a number of 
management measures within Amendment 3. Consistent with the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 
applicable laws, the objectives for this proposed rule are to: (1) 
Implement a rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks; (2) end overfishing 
for blacknose and shortfin mako sharks; (3) provide an opportunity for 
the sustainable harvest of finetooth, bonnethead, Atlantic sharpnose 
sharks and other sharks, as appropriate; (4) prevent overfishing of 
Atlantic sharks; and (5) consider management measures for smooth 
dogfish sharks in Federal waters, as appropriate.
    In addition to the proposed management alternatives, NMFS proposes 
to take additional administrative actions to clarify regulations and 
update various scientific and other names. These administrative actions 
are described in the section entitled ``Administrative Actions.'' NMFS 
also discusses ACLs and AMs for the Atlantic shark fisheries to include 
a mechanism for specifying ACLs and AMs for Atlantic sharks.
    NMFS prepared a DEIS for the draft Amendment 3 that discusses the 
impact on the environment as a result of this rule and the proposed 
management measures. A copy of the DEIS/draft Amendment 3 is available 
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Environmental Protection Agency is 
expected to publish the notice of availability for this DEIS on or 
about the same date that this proposed rule publishes.

ACLs and AMs

    The Magnuson-Stevens Conservation Act as amended and reauthorized 
in 2007 included a mandate in Section 303(a)(15) for each FMP to 
include a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level to prevent 
overfishing and to include AMs to ensure ACLs would not be exceeded. On 
January 16, 2009, NMFS published the final National Standard 1 
Guidelines (NSG1) which, among other things, provided procedures and 
guidance for implementing the ACL and AM requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (74 FR 3178). Per NSG1, ACLs and AMs apply ``unless 
otherwise provided for under an international agreement in which the 
United States participates.'' While SCS, LCS, and pelagic sharks are 
predominately managed through domestic management measures, in recent 
years ICCAT has adopted a number of recommendations regarding sharks 
(e.g., ICCAT recommendations 2004-10, 2005-05, 2007-06, and 2008-07). 
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) authorizes Secretary of 
Commerce to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and 
appropriate, to implement binding ICCAT recommendations. Some shark 
species or complexes (e.g., SCS) will likely be managed solely through 
domestic actions taken under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. ACLs and AMs 
will apply to those species. Other shark species (e.g., shortfin mako 
sharks) will be managed via a mix of domestic actions taken under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and international actions taken pursuant to 
international fishery agreements or through other appropriate 
international organizations. The method for managing specific species 
will likely change overtime as Regional Fishery Management 
Organizations, including ICCAT if appropriate, begin to manage sharks 
internationally. While the proposed rule provides a mechanism for 
setting ACLs and AMs for the pelagic shark complex, which includes 
shortfin mako, it is not possible for the U.S. to end overfishing of 
the species without international cooperation since the relative U.S. 
contribution to fishing mortality is minor compared to cumulative 
fishing mortality related to foreign fishing outside the U.S. EEZ.
    According to NSG1, Section 303(a)(15) mandates that a mechanism for 
specifying ACLs at a level to prevent overfishing and AMs to ensure 
ACLs would not be exceeded be included in FMPs. The process for 
establishing ACLs and AMs for Atlantic sharks is outlined below. NMFS 
has determined that the overfishing limit (OFL) is greater than or 
equal to the allowable biological catch (ABC) limit, which is greater 
than or equal to the ACL. As such, NMFS is establishing for all 
Atlantic sharks the following guidelines to use when establishing ACLs 
and AMs. NMFS considers the OFL to be the annual amount of catch that 
corresponds to the estimate of maximum fishing mortality threshold 
(MFMT) applied to the stock abundance. The ABC would be established to 
account for uncertainty in the assessment. Ideally, the actual ABC 
would be established as part of stock assessment reports, results, and/
or conclusions. However, because the SCS assessment predates the ACL 
final rule and until new stock assessments for HMS incorporate the new 
ACL and AM guidance, for sharks, NMFS is determining that the ABC is 
lower than the OFL to account for scientific uncertainty, and the ABC 
is equal to the ACL.
    In general, the ACL is equivalent to the total allowable catch 
(TAC) for all the fisheries that interact with a given shark species. 
The TAC, or ACL, is provided as part of the stock assessment report, 
result, and/or conclusion. If the OFL can be estimated and the ABC is 
not available, then the ACL should be less than the OFL to account for 
scientific uncertainty. For overfished shark stocks, the ACL is equal 
to the stock assessment projection that shows rebuilding with a 70-
percent chance of success. NMFS uses the 70 percent probability for 
rebuilding for sharks given their life history traits, such as late age 
of maturity and low fecundity compared to other fish stocks. This ACL 
is lower than the OFL. Additionally, NMFS may establish ``sector 
ACLs,'' which would include landings and discards, and ``commercial 
landings components of the sector ACL,'' which would be the commercial 
landings quota for specific shark fisheries.
    For sharks, the quotas are generally established for the commercial 
fishery, not the recreational fishery. NMFS has not established quotas 
for the recreational shark fishery due to the difficulty in estimating 
recreational catches in real time, but may consider doing so in the 
future. While the shark recreational fishery does not have a formal 
quota, catches within the recreational shark fishery are considered 
when stock assessments are conducted and taken into account when NMFS 
establishes the OFL, ABC, ACL, and TAC. NMFS also takes the 
recreational catches, along with discards from the commercial sector, 
into account when establishing the commercial quota or ``commercial 
landings components of the sector ACL.'' Because sector ACLs are being 
used, sector AMs will also be used. This proposed rule changes the 
quotas for SCS and establishes a commercial quota for smooth dogfish. 
It does not change the quotas that were

[[Page 36894]]

previously established for LCS and pelagic sharks.
    The NSG1 also requires NMFS to establish AMs. NMFS already has 
established AMs along with measures analogous to allowable catch 
targets (ACTs) in commercial Atlantic shark fisheries. Specifically, 
overharvests of the commercial shark quotas are deducted from the next 
fishing year's quota. In addition, underharvests for shark species that 
are not overfished or are not experiencing overfishing are added to the 
base quota the following year and capped at 50 percent of the base 
quota. There is no carryover of underharvests for shark species that 
are unknown, overfished, or experiencing overfishing. In addition, NMFS 
closes the quota for each shark species/complex by filing a notice in 
the Federal Register when 80 percent of a given quota is filled. The 
closure goes into effect five days from the date of filing. Eighty 
percent of the shark quota is, therefore, the annual catch target 
(ACT). The measures in this proposed rule and in draft Amendment 3 do 
not change these AMs.

Blacknose Shark Rebuilding Plan

    Under National Standard (NS) 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 600.310), NMFS is required to 
``prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY 
from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.'' In order to 
accomplish this, NMFS must determine the maximum sustainable yield 
(MSY) and specify status determination criteria to allow a 
determination of the status of the stock. In cases where the fishery is 
overfished, NMFS must take action to rebuild the stock (by specifying 
rebuilding targets). NMFS must take action with ACLs and AMs to prevent 
overfishing for stocks currently overfishing by 2010, and for all other 
stocks beginning 2011 onward. NMFS outlined the status determination 
criteria and a set of rebuilding targets in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic 
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and maintained those criteria and targets 
in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. This amendment does not change these 
criteria or targets.
    As described in the NSG1, if a stock is overfished, NMFS is 
required to ``prepare an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulations * 
* * to specify a time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the 
stock or stock complex that will be as short as possible as described 
under section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act'' (50 CFR 
600.310(j)(2)(ii)). A rebuilding ABC must be set to reflect the annual 
catch that is consistent with the schedule of the fishing mortality 
rates in the rebuilding plan. The time frame to rebuild the stock or 
stock complex must be as short as possible taking into account a number 
of factors including: The status and biology of the stock or stock 
complex; interactions between the stock or stock complex and other 
components of the marine ecosystem; the needs of the fishing 
communities; recommendations by international organizations in which 
the United States participates; and management measures under an 
international agreement in which the United States participates. The 
time frame for rebuilding may not exceed ten (10) years unless a longer 
time is otherwise dictated by the biology of the species, other 
environmental conditions, or management measures established under an 
international agreement in which the U.S. participates.
    The lower limit of the specified time frame for rebuilding is 
determined by the status and biology of the stock and is defined as ``* 
* * the amount of time the stock or stock complex is expected to take 
to rebuild to its MSY biomass level in the absence of any fishing 
mortality'' (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(A)). The NS 1 guidelines specify 
two strategies for determining the rebuilding time frame depending on 
the lower limit of the specified time frame for rebuilding. The first 
strategy (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(C)) states that: ``If T<INF>min</INF> 
[minimum time for rebuilding a stock] for the stock or stock complex is 
10 years or less, then the maximum time allowable for rebuilding 
(T<INF>max</INF>) that stock to its B<INF>MSY</INF> is 10 years.'' The 
second strategy (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(D)) specifies that if 
T<INF>min</INF> for the stock or stock complex exceeds 10 years, then 
the maximum time allowable for rebuilding a stock or stock complex to 
its B<INF>MSY</INF> is T<INF>min</INF> plus the length of time 
associated with one generation time for that stock or stock complex. 
``Generation time'' is the average length of time between when an 
individual is born and the birth of its offspring.
    The latest 2007 stock assessment of SCS in the U.S. Atlantic and 
Gulf of Mexico is a peer-reviewed assessment and was conducted in a 
SEDAR-like process. The 2007 assessment includes catch estimates 
through 2005, biological data, and a number of fishery-independent and 
fishery-dependent catch rate series. The stock assessment considered 
several rebuilding scenarios for blacknose sharks and found that, under 
a no fishing scenario, the stock would take 11 years to rebuild. Adding 
a generation time (8 years), as described under NS1 for species that 
require more than 10 years to rebuild even if fishing mortality was 
eliminated entirely, the target year for rebuilding the stock was 
estimated to be 2027 (8 years mean generation time + 11 years to 
rebuild if fishing mortality eliminated = 19 years including 2009). 
Thus, the stock assessment found that the shortest time possible for 
the stock to be rebuilt based on the biology of blacknose sharks is 
2027 with a 70-percent probability of success if a TAC of 19,200 
blacknose sharks per year were implemented across all fisheries that 
interact with blacknose sharks. As described above and in the DEIS, 
NMFS uses a 70-percent probability of rebuilding to ensure that the 
intended results of a management action are actually realized given the 
life history traits of sharks.
    According to the latest blacknose shark stock assessment, an 
average of 86,381 blacknose sharks were killed each year between 1999-
2005 in different fisheries either as targeted catch or as bycatch. In 
order to attain the blacknose shark TAC of 19,200, NMFS needs to reduce 
the number of blacknose sharks killed each year across all fisheries by 
at least 78 percent. The stock assessment indicates that approximately 
45 percent of blacknose sharks are killed as bycatch in the Gulf of 
Mexico and Atlantic shrimp trawl fisheries, and the rest of the 
mortality occurs within the HMS Atlantic commercial and recreational 
shark fisheries. NMFS will continue to work and coordinate with the 
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils to create 
management measures to meet bycatch reduction measures to reduce 
mortality of blacknose sharks in the shrimp trawl fisheries, as 
appropriate. NMFS will also work to reduce the mortality of blacknose 
sharks in Atlantic shark fisheries through the implementation of 
management measures, as analyzed in draft Amendment 3.
    Currently, average commercial annual landings of blacknose sharks 
within the Atlantic shark fisheries are 27,484 blacknose sharks, and 
average annual commercial dead discards are 5,007 blacknose sharks. A 
78-percent reduction in commercial blacknose landings (6,046 blacknose 
sharks per year) and discards (1,102 blacknose sharks per year) in the 
Atlantic shark fisheries equates to a total mortality of 7,148 
blacknose sharks per year in the commercial fishery (6,046 + 1,102 = 
7,148). Assuming an average commercial blacknose weight across all 
commercial gears (including shrimp trawl) of 6.3 lb dw, these 7,148 
blacknose sharks is equivalent to 45,032

[[Page 36895]]

lb dw (7,148 blacknose sharks x 6.3 lb dw = 45,032 lb dw)(34 mt dw). In 
addition, on average, 54 blacknose sharks are taken each year under the 
exempted fishing program. Given the average weight of the blacknose 
sharks taken under the exempted fishing program is 3.3 lb dw, this 
equals approximately 178.2 lb dw of blacknose sharks landed under the 
exempted fishing program each year. Thus, no more than 44,853.8 lb dw 
(45,032 lb dw--178.2 lb dw = 44,853.8 lb dw)(20.3 mt dw) or 7,094 
blacknose sharks (7,148 blacknose sharks--54 blacknose sharks taken in 
the EFP program = 7,094 blacknose sharks) can be landed by the 
commercial fishery. As such, the commercial sector ACL for blacknose 
sharks is equal to 44,853.8 lb dw.
    In addition, on average, the recreational fishery landed 10,408 
blacknose sharks per year. A 78-percent reduction in recreational 
landings would result in 2,290 blacknose sharks per year. This results 
in an overall annual allowance of 9,438 blacknose sharks in all HMS 
fisheries.

The Proposed Management Measures

    The following is a summary of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS 
for Amendment 3. Additional analyses and descriptions are provided in 
the DEIS.

A. SCS Commercial Quotas

    NMFS is considering several alternatives for SCS relating to 
commercial quotas and species complexes. The alternatives for the 
Atlantic shark fishery range from maintaining the status quo to 
restructuring the SCS complex and prohibiting the retention of 
blacknose sharks. Specifically, the alternatives considered are: 
alternative A1--no action; alternative A2--establish a non-blacknose 
SCS quota of 392.5 mt dw and a blacknose commercial quota of 13.5 mt 
dw; alternative A3--establish a non-blacknose SCS quota of 42.7 mt dw, 
a blacknose commercial quota of 16.6 mt dw, and allow all current 
authorized gears for sharks; alternative A4--establish a non-blacknose 
SCS quota of 56.9 mt dw, a blacknose commercial quota of 14.9 mt dw, 
and remove shark gillnet gear as an authorized gear for sharks; and 
alternative A5--close the entire SCS fishery. Alternative A4 is the 
preferred alternative.
    Alternative A4, the preferred alternative, would remove blacknose 
sharks from the SCS quota and create a blacknose shark-specific quota. 
The quota of the non-blacknose SCS would be 56.9 mt dw (125,487 lb dw), 
which is a 76-percent reduction from the average landings of finetooth, 
Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks from 2004 through 2007. Under 
this alternative, NMFS would establish a blacknose shark-specific quota 
of 14.9 mt dw (32,753 lb dw), which is the amount of blacknose sharks 
that would be harvested while the quota for non-blacknose SCS is 
harvested assuming similar catch rates and number of trips as from 
2004-2007. Under this alternative, fishermen with an incidental shark 
limited access permit would not be allowed to retain any blacknose 
sharks. In addition, this alternative assumes that gillnet gear would 
not be allowed to harvest sharks from South Carolina south (see the 
alternatives in section B below) and that fishermen would fish for SCS, 
including blacknose sharks, in a directed fashion until either the non-
blacknose SCS or blacknose shark quota reached 80 percent. At that 
time, both the non-blacknose SCS and the blacknose shark fisheries 
would close, all SCS would be discarded, and fishermen would target 
other species and continue to catch SCS as bycatch. Assuming the 
fishery operates in this fashion, NMFS estimates that total mortality 
for blacknose sharks would be 37,763 lb dw, which is below the 
commercial landings component of 44,853.8 lb dw for commercially caught 
blacknose sharks within the Atlantic shark fisheries.
    Alternative A4 is anticipated to have positive ecological impacts 
for blacknose, Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks as 
it would reduce landings by 76 percent for blacknose sharks and 76 
percent for non-blacknose SCS based on current landings. In addition, 
it would reduce discards by 81 percent for blacknose sharks and 2 to 3 
percent for non-blacknose SCS based on current discards if gillnets are 
prohibited in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean under either 
alternative B2 or B3 (described below). Cumulatively, this would reduce 
mortality of blacknose sharks by at least 78 percent and would meet the 
rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks. Discards of blacknose and non-
blacknose SCS predominately occur on BLL gear, therefore, removing 
gillnet gear is not expected to affect discards of either blacknose 
sharks or non-blacknose SCS. NMFS assumes that if retention of sharks 
is prohibited with gillnet gear, directed gillnet fishing for sharks 
would cease; however, fishermen would continue to use gillnet gear to 
target other species and discard any sharks that were caught. In 
addition, alternative A4 would reduce landings of large coastal sharks 
(LCS), predominately blacktip sharks, which are also caught in gillnet 
gear. If gillnets are prohibited in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 
Caribbean Sea under alternative A4 and either alternative B2 or B3, 
NMFS estimates that LCS landings could decrease by 101,409 to 104,132 
lb dw compared to current average landings of 3,170,155 lb dw from 
2004-2007. Dead discards could decrease by 50,797 and 52,979 lb dw 
compared to average annual discards of 359,129 lb dw according to 
Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. These LCS reductions 
could be greater given management measures that were implemented under 
Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which reduced quotas and 
trip limits in the directed LCS fishery starting in July 2008. 
Therefore, NMFS anticipates that this alternative would also have 
positive ecological impacts on LCS.
    Under this alternative, total annual gross revenues from landings 
of non-blacknose SCS are anticipated to be $159,368. This is a 76-
percent reduction in annual gross revenues from the gross revenues 
expected under alternative A1 ($661,513). Since directed permit holders 
land approximately 97 percent of the non-blacknose SCS, NMFS 
anticipates that directed permit holders would lose more in annual 
gross revenues compared to incidental permit holders. Under this 
alternative, total annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS for 
directed shark permit holders would be $153,841, which is a loss of 
$487,165 in annual gross revenues or a 76-percent reduction in annual 
gross revenues from the gross revenues expected under alternative A1 
($641,006). Incidental permit holders land approximately 3 percent of 
the non-blacknose SCS. Total annual gross revenues from non-blacknose 
SCS for incidental shark permit holders would be $4,922, which is a 
loss of $15,585 in annual gross revenues or a 76-percent reduction in 
annual gross revenues from the gross revenues expected under 
alternative A1 ($20,507).
    The blacknose shark quota would also be reduced by 76 percent based 
on average landings from 2004-2007. Total annual gross revenues for the 
blacknose shark landings for the directed fishery could decrease from 
$172,197 under alternative A1 to $41,269 under preferred alternative 
A4. This is a loss of $130,928 or a 76-percent reduction in total 
annual gross revenues from blacknose sharks for directed shark 
fishermen. Because incidental fishermen would not be able to retain 
blacknose sharks, they would lose an estimated $12,054 in annual gross 
revenues from blacknose shark landings.

[[Page 36896]]

    This alternative would also prohibit the use of gillnets to land 
sharks as explained under alternatives B2 and B3. Under alternative A4 
and either B2 or B3, lost annual gross revenues for all vessels landing 
non-blacknose SCS using gillnet gear would be between $275,008 and 
$287,427. This is a reduction of 42 to 43 percent in the annual gross 
revenues for the entire non-blacknose SCS fishery compared to 
alternative A1 ($661,513). Total lost annual gross revenues for 
directed shark permit holders using gillnet gear to land non-blacknose 
SCS would be between $268,580 and $275,832, which is a reduction of 42 
to 45 percent from the annual gross revenues for directed permits 
holders under alternative A1 ($641,006).
    The five to seven gillnet vessels that primarily target non-
blacknose SCS may experience higher losses. Total lost annual gross 
revenues for incidental shark permit holders using gillnet gear to land 
non-blacknose SCS under alternative A4 and either B2 or B3 would be 
between $6,429 and $11,595, which is a reduction of 43 to 68 percent 
from alternative A1 ($20,507).
    In addition, LCS are also landed with gillnet gear. As such, 
alternative A4 in combination with alternatives B2 and B3 would also 
impact LCS fishermen using gillnet gear. Under alternative A4 and 
either B2 or B3, lost annual gross revenues for all vessels landing LCS 
using gillnet gear would be between $106,479 and $109,339. This is a 
reduction of three percent in the annual gross revenues for the entire 
LCS fishery compared to alternative A1 ($3,328,663).
    NMFS prefers alternative A4 at this time because by reducing 
overall effort in the SCS fishery, NMFS would reduce the level of 
blacknose shark discards such that, assuming all the mortality from 
other fisheries is also reduced appropriately, the total blacknose 
shark mortality would stay below the TAC needed to rebuild the stock. 
Under alternative A4, blacknose shark landings would decrease by 76 
percent and discards would decrease by 81 percent. Landings for non-
blacknose SCS would also decrease by 76 percent and discards could 
decrease by 2-3 percent. In addition, alternative A4 in combination 
with either alternative B2 or B3 could decrease landings of LCS by only 
three percent, but could decrease discards of LCS by up to 15 percent. 
These reductions in landings of all SCS would result in a 76-percent 
reduction in gross revenues from SCS landings overall; however, such a 
reduction is needed to lower the overall mortality on blacknose sharks. 
While gillnet fishermen would be impacted the most and would have 
estimated annual gross revenue losses between $377,928 and $365,067, 
alternative A4 would allow for a higher non-blacknose SCS than 
blacknose shark quota (56.9 mt dw) compared to alternative A3 (42.7 mt 
dw) because associated gillnet effort is anticipated to decline more 
under alternative A4 leaving a larger quota available for the rest of 
the SCS fishery. This higher quota would benefit the larger SCS 
fishery, while the prohibition on the use of gillnets would affect a 
small number of directed gillnet fishermen.
    Under alternative A1, the no action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain the current SCS complex and annual quota for the complex of 
454 metric ton (mt) dressed weight (dw). Under this alternative, there 
would be neutral social and economic impacts to directed and incidental 
fishermen in the short-term as the gross revenues from SCS landings, 
including blacknose shark landings, would be the same as the status 
quo. These measures would also have neutral ecological impacts for 
finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks within the SCS 
complex, which have all been determined to not be overfished with no 
overfishing occurring. However, this alternative would have negative 
ecological impacts on blacknose sharks, which have been determined to 
be overfished with overfishing occurring, as there would be no 
reduction in current blacknose landings. Without reductions in current 
blacknose shark mortality, NMFS would not be able to achieve the TAC of 
19,200 blacknose sharks per year recommended by the 2007 blacknose 
shark stock assessment. Without achieving such a reduction in 
mortality, blacknose sharks would not be able to rebuild within their 
specified rebuilding timeframe and landings and associated revenues 
would likely decline in the long-term as the blacknose shark stock 
continues to decline.
    Alternative A2 would remove blacknose sharks from the SCS quota and 
create a blacknose shark-specific quota and a separate non-blacknose 
SCS quota, which would be comprised of finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, 
and bonnethead sharks. The non-blacknose SCS quota would be the current 
SCS quota (454 mt dw) minus average annual landings of blacknose sharks 
(136,595 lb dw or 61.5 mt dw per year). This would result in an non-
blacknose SCS quota of 392.5 mt dw per year (454 mt dw-61.5 mt dw = 
392.5 mt dw). The blacknose shark quota would be a 78-percent reduction 
in current landings or 13.5 mt dw (29,762 lb dw per year) (61.5 mt dw x 
78 percent = 48 mt dw; 61.5 mt dw - 48 mt dw = 13.5 mt dw per year). 
This is equivalent to approximately 2,834 blacknose sharks per year 
assuming an average commercial shark fishery weight (excluding bycatch 
and recreational landings) of blacknose = 10.5 lb dw.
    Alternative A2 would have neutral ecological impacts on finetooth, 
Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks as it would most likely not 
result in reduced landings of any of these species since the overall 
SCS quota would only be reduced by the average annual blacknose shark 
landings. However, although this alternative could reduce landings of 
blacknose sharks by 78 percent, because discards would continue as 
fishermen directed on non-blacknose SCS, overall mortality for 
blacknose sharks would still be above the commercial sector ACL of 
44,853.8 lb dw per year (7,094 blacknose sharks per year), even if the 
retention of blacknose sharks was prohibited. This would have negative 
ecological impacts for blacknose sharks as it would not allow them to 
rebuild within their allotted rebuilding time.
    NMFS anticipates that non-blacknose SCS landings would not decrease 
as the non-blacknose SCS quota would only be reduced by the average 
blacknose shark landings. Total gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS 
landings are anticipated to be the same for alternative A2 as under 
alternative A1 ($661,513). As such, social and economic impacts on 
directed and incidental shark fishermen for the non-blacknose SCS quota 
would be neutral under alternative A2 in the short term. However, the 
blacknose shark quota would be a 78-percent reduction based on average 
landings from 2004-2007. Total gross revenues for the blacknose shark 
landings for the entire fishery would decrease from $172,197 under 
alternative A1 to $37,500 under this alternative. Because directed 
permit holders are responsible for the majority of blacknose shark 
landings, it is anticipated that directed permit holders would 
experience the largest economic impacts under this alternative.
    NMFS does not prefer alternative A2. Specifically, under this 
alternative, discards of blacknose sharks would continue as fishermen 
directed on SCS other than blacknose shark. This would result in a 
higher overall mortality for blacknose sharks than what would be 
allowed under the rebuilding plan. In the long term, a decrease in 
revenues may be expected as the blacknose shark stock continues to 
decline resulting in reduced landings.

[[Page 36897]]

    Alternative A3 is similar to alternative A4 in that it would remove 
blacknose sharks from the SCS quota and create a blacknose shark quota 
and a separate non-blacknose SCS quota equal to 42.7 mt dw (94,115 lb 
dw), which would be comprised of finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, and 
bonnethead sharks. The non-blacknose SCS quota equates to an 82-percent 
reduction from the average current landings of finetooth, Atlantic 
sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks from 2004 through 2007. The blacknose 
shark quota would be 16.6 mt dw (36,526 lb dw), which is the amount of 
blacknose sharks that would be harvested while the non-blacknose SCS 
quota is harvested assuming fishermen continue to direct on non-
blacknose SCS. Under this alternative, as with alternative A4, 
incidental fishermen would not be allowed to retain any blacknose 
sharks. Also, this alternative, as with alternative A4, assumes that 
directed fishermen would fish for non-blacknose SCS in a directed 
fashion until the non-blacknose SCS quota reached 80 percent. At that 
time, the entire SCS fishery, including blacknose sharks, would close, 
and all SCS would be discarded. The main difference between this 
alternative and alternative A4 is that this alternative assumes the 
gillnet fishery continues as it does now (alternative B1 as described 
below). Under this alternative, NMFS estimates that total mortality for 
blacknose sharks would be 43,601 lb dw, which is below the commercial 
sector ACL of 44,853.8 lb dw.
    Alternative A3 is anticipated to have positive ecological impacts 
for blacknose, Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks as 
it would reduce landings by 73 percent for blacknose sharks and 82 
percent for non-blacknose SCS based on current landings. In addition, 
it would reduce discards by 74 percent for blacknose sharks but could 
increase discards by up to 62 percent for non-blacknose SCS based on 
current discards.
    Under alternative A3, total annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 
SCS for the entire fishery are anticipated to be $119,526. This is an 
82-percent reduction in gross revenues from the gross revenues expected 
under alternative A1 ($661,513). Since directed permit holders land 
approximately 97 percent of the non-blacknose SCS landings as explained 
in alternative A1, NMFS anticipates that directed permit holders would 
lose more in gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings compared to 
incidental permit holders. Total gross revenues for directed shark 
permit holders of non-blacknose SCS under alternative A3 would be 
$115,821, which is a loss of $525,185 in gross revenues or an 82-
percent reduction in gross revenues from the gross revenues expected 
under alternative A1 ($641,006). Total gross revenues for incidental 
shark permit holders of non-blacknose SCS under alternative A3 would be 
$3,705, which is a loss of $16,802 in gross revenues and an 82-percent 
reduction in gross revenues from the gross revenues expected under 
alternative A1 ($20,507).
    Under alternative A3, total annual gross revenues for the blacknose 
shark landings for the directed fishery would decrease from $172,197 
under the alternative A1 to $46,023, which is a loss of $126,174, or 73 
percent. Because incidental fishermen would not be able to retain 
blacknose sharks, they would lose an estimated $12,054 in gross 
revenues from blacknose shark landings. Given alternative A3 has a 
larger reduction in quota of non-blacknose SCS and would affect more 
directed and incidental permit holders compared to alternative A4, NMFS 
is not preferring alternative A3 at this time.
    Alternative A5 would close the entire SCS commercial shark fishery, 
prohibiting the landing of any SCS, including blacknose sharks. This 
alternative would have positive ecological impacts for all SCS species 
as it would prohibit landings of finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, 
bonnethead, and blacknose sharks. On average, landings of finetooth, 
Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and blacknose sharks were 120,000 lb 
dw, 363,303 lb dw, 37,562 lb dw, and 136,595 lb dw, respectively. 
However, since shark fishermen would presumably continue to fish for 
LCS using BLL gear, discards of SCS could continue on BLL gear. 
Additionally, fishermen using gillnet gear in other fisheries would 
continue to use gillnets. As such, discards of SCS on gillnet gear 
would also continue.
    This alternative could also have positive ecological impacts for 
LCS. Since gillnets are the primary gear used to target SCS, except for 
strikenets, which are used to target blacktip sharks, presumably all 
directed shark gillnet fishing, with the exception of fishing with 
strikenets, would stop under alternative A5. If all directed shark 
gillnet fishing stopped under alternative A5, NMFS estimates that 
landings of LCS could decrease by approximately 102,171 lb dw (3 
percent) compared to current average landings of 3,170,155 lb dw from 
2004-2007; however, this decrease may be slightly less if blacktip 
sharks continue to be harvested with directed strikenet gear. 
Alternative A5 could also decrease LCS dead discards by 52,979 lb dw or 
15 percent compared to average annual discards of 359,129 lb dw from 
2003-2005.
    Under alternative A5, NMFS estimates there would be a loss of 
average annual gross revenues of $661,513 for non-blacknose SCS and 
$172,197 from blacknose shark landings for a total loss of $833,710 in 
annual gross revenues from SCS landings. Directed permit holders would 
lose $641,006 in average annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS 
landings and $160,143 in average annual gross revenues from blacknose 
shark landings for a total of $801,149 in average annual gross 
revenues. Incidental permit holders would lose $20,507 in average 
annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings and $12,054 in 
average annual gross revenues from blacknose shark landings for a total 
of $32,561 in average annual gross revenues under alternative A5. This 
alternative could also result in a decrease in average annual gross 
revenues of LCS of $107,280.
    While this alternative could reduce blacknose mortality below the 
commercial sector ACL of 44,853.8 lb dw, it would also completely 
eliminate the fishery for all other SCS species. This would severely 
curtail data collection of all SCS that could be used for future stock 
assessments and would have larger economic impacts on directed and 
incidental fishermen than any of the other alternatives. Thus, NMFS 
does not prefer this alternative at this time.

B. Commercial Gear Restrictions

    NMFS considered several alternatives for commercial gear 
restrictions ranging from no action to closing the gillnet fishery. 
Specifically, NMFS considered alternative B1--no action, maintain 
current gear regulations; alternative B2--close the gillnet fishery and 
remove gillnet gear from authorized gear type for commercial shark 
fishing; and alternative B3--close the gillnet fishery to commercial 
shark fishing from South Carolina south, including the Gulf of Mexico 
and Caribbean. Alternative B3 is the preferred alternative.
    Under alternative B3, NMFS would close the gillnet fishery to 
commercial shark fishing from South Carolina south, including the Gulf 
of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative would eliminate the 
predominant gear type used to harvest blacknose sharks in the South 
Atlantic region and would help rebuild the blacknose shark stock by 
reducing gillnet mortality throughout their habitat range. Blacknose 
sharks are commonly found from North Carolina to Brazil, including the 
Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative would

[[Page 36898]]

also help mitigate impacts of managing the smooth dogfish fishery (see 
alternatives F2 and F3), which uses gillnet gear predominately from 
North Carolina north. This alternative is expected to have a positive 
ecological impact for the overfished blacknose shark population and for 
the SCS fishery as a whole by reducing landings from the primary gear 
used to target SCS. This prohibition is expected to decrease the total 
landings per year of directed and incidental shark permit holders for 
all SCS from 659,459 lb dw per year to 158,240 lb dw per year. This is 
a 76 percent reduction. Blacknose sharks are not reported as landed 
with gillnets north of South Carolina and NMFS does not expect 
prohibiting gillnets from South Carolina south to change this. The 
directed blacknose shark landings are anticipated to be reduced from 
127,033 lb dw per year to 55,858 lb dw per year, or a 44 percent 
reduction in landings. The incidental blacknose shark landings would 
drop from 9,562 lb dw per year to 9,262 lb dw per year, or a 3 percent 
reduction in landings. Under this alternative, NMFS assumes that all 
directed shark gillnet effort would cease. However, it is estimated 
that blacknose sharks would still be caught and discarded incidentally 
by fishermen targeting other species (i.e., Spanish mackerel) using 
gillnet gear. NMFS estimates that 158.6 blacknose sharks per year 
(2,284 lb dw per year) would be discarded in these fisheries.
    The ecological impacts of alternative B3 on the LCS and smooth 
dogfish fishery are expected to be minimal since most smooth dogfish 
landings occur from North Carolina north and the majority of LCS 
landings occur with BLL gear. With the prohibition of gillnets from 
South Carolina south, total landings per year of LCS are anticipated to 
decrease by 101,409 lb dw per year (3 percent of the fishery).
    This alternative could have positive ecological impacts on 
protected species. From 2004-2007, a total of 14 loggerhead and 
leatherback sea turtles (2 discarded dead) were caught in gillnets. 
Also, interaction with north Atlantic right whales and dolphin species 
could occur in shark gillnet fishing areas. In 2006, a right whale was 
found dead in Florida and available evidence suggests that the 
entanglement and injuries of the whale by gillnet gear eventually led 
to the death of the animal. It is unknown if the gillnet gear was from 
the shark fishery, but the removal of gillnets as an authorized gear 
type for sharks would reduce interactions with protected species. Some 
protected shark species that are impacted by gillnets are the sand 
tiger, sandbar, angel, and dusky sharks. All of these protected species 
populations would benefit from the elimination of gillnet gear.
    This alternative would have a negative social and economic impact 
on Federally permitted directed and incidental fishermen. The gillnet 
fishery from South Carolina south accounts for 44 percent of the total 
landings of SCS by fishermen with directed permits, and 26 percent of 
SCS landings by fishermen with incidental permits. On average, from 
South Carolina south, directed shark permit holders land 283,462 lb dw 
($358,261) of SCS with gillnet gear. Thus, under this alternative, 
directed shark fishermen could lose approximately $358,261 of their 
current $807,792 in annual gross revenues. Similarly, on average, 
incidental shark permit holders land 5,381 lb dw ($6,807) of SCS with 
gillnet gear from South Carolina south. This alternative would cause 
$6,807 in lost SCS annual gross revenues for incidental shark 
fishermen. Combined, directed and incidental shark fishermen would lose 
$365,068 from their current annual gross revenues of $833,634.
    This alternative would have minor social and economic impacts on 
the LCS fishery. The directed shark permit holders are estimated to 
lose 101,132 lb dw per year of LCS landings under alternative B3. This 
alternative could equate to $106,189 in lost LCS revenues for directed 
shark fishermen. On average, incidental shark permit holders are 
estimated to lose 2,761 lb dw of LCS landings. This alternative could 
equate to $290 in lost LCS revenues for incidental shark permit 
holders. This represents a 3 percent reduction in LCS annual gross 
revenues for the total LCS fishery.
    This alternative is not expected to have social and economic 
impacts on the smooth dogfish fishery. This species is primarily caught 
commercially in gillnet gear from North Carolina north. As such, NMFS 
does not expect the prohibition of gillnet gear in areas south of North 
Carolina to impact smooth dogfish fishermen.
    The preferred alternative, B3, reduces fishing effort on blacknose 
sharks by removing gillnet gear from the areas where blacknose sharks 
interact with gillnet gear. This is anticipated to reduce blacknose 
shark landings by 71,475 lb dw per year. This alternative also allows 
gillnet gear in the areas where the majority of the smooth dogfish are 
landed. By allowing gillnet gear in North Carolina and north, NMFS is 
mitigating impacts on the smooth dogfish fishery while reducing 
mortality on blacknose sharks. The removal of gillnet gear from South 
Carolina south could also have positive ecological impacts to non-
blacknose SCS by reducing their landings by an estimated 217,368 lb dw. 
However, this alternative could also have significant social and 
economic impacts by affecting approximately 37 directed and 6 
incidental SCS and LCS permit holders. It will also reduce SCS and LCS 
revenues for directed permit holders by $464,450 and SCS and LCS 
revenues for incidental permit holders by $7,097. This alternative is 
also anticipated to have positive ecological impacts on protected 
resources. Given the need to reduce blacknose shark mortality to 
rebuild the stock, the fact that gillnet gear is the predominate gear 
used in the Atlantic shark fisheries to harvest blacknose sharks, the 
fact that this would have minimal impact on smooth dogfish fishermen, 
and the continuing bycatch concerns regarding this gear, particularly 
of protected species, NMFS is preferring alternative B3 at this time.
    Under alternative B1, the no action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain BLL, rod and reel, bandit, and gillnet gear as authorized 
gears in the Atlantic shark fishery and would maintain all the other 
gear requirements such as corrodible hooks for BLL fishermen and net 
checks for gillnet fishermen. Since there would be no change to the 
gear restrictions under alternative B1, the ecological impacts for 
Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks would be neutral 
as these species were not determined to be overfished and overfishing 
is not occurring. Additionally, any current ecological impacts on LCS 
and protected resources would continue. However, this no action 
alternative could have negative ecological impacts on blacknose sharks 
because NMFS would not be able to achieve the commercial sector ACL of 
44,853.8 lb dw per year (7,094 blacknose sharks per year).
    No negative social or economic impacts would be anticipated under 
alternative B1. Currently, directed and incidental SCS fishermen retain 
a total annual gross revenues of $833,634, while the directed and 
incidental LCS fishermen have a larger annual gross revenues at 
$3,328,663. While this alternative would have the fewest socio-economic 
impacts compared to alternatives B2 and B3, it would not aid in 
achieving the reduction needed to rebuild blacknose sharks, consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Under alternative B2, NMFS would remove gillnet gear as an 
authorized gear type for commercial shark fishing, which would close 
the shark gillnet fishery. Shark LAP holders could

[[Page 36899]]

continue to use other commercially-authorized gears such as BLL, rod 
and reel, handline, or bandit gear. This alternative would have 
positive ecological impacts for SCS, LCS, and smooth dogfish as it 
would reduce commercial landings and decrease bycatch rates of both 
target and non-target species, including protected resources. Since 
gillnets are the dominant gear type used to target SCS, this 
restriction would have a large impact on the total landings per year. 
The directed shark permit holders have, on average, total landings of 
all SCS of 639,015 lb dw per year with all gear types. Of these, 
289,546 lb dw are made with gillnet gear. If gillnets were prohibited, 
the average total landings could drop 45 percent to 349,469 lb dw per 
year (639,015--289,546 = 349,469 lb dw per year). Shark landings by 
incidental permit holders would decline 5 percent from 20,443 lb dw per 
year to 19,497 lb dw per year. Given that commercial blacknose landings 
in gillnets were 71,827 lb dw per year of the total 136,595 lb dw 
landings, removing gillnets from the shark commercial landings would 
help achieve the 78-percent reduction needed to rebuild blacknose 
sharks. Removing gillnet gear could reduce blacknose shark landings by 
an estimated 53 percent.
    As described above under alternative B3, with the removal of 
gillnet gear, NMFS assumes that all directed shark gillnet fishing 
effort would cease. However, blacknose sharks would still be caught and 
discarded by fishermen targeting other species (i.e., mackerel) and 
using gillnet gear. NMFS estimates that 158.6 blacknose sharks or 2,248 
lb dw per year would be discarded incidentally by these other 
fisheries.
    While LCS are also caught in gillnet gear, as described in 
alternative B3, the ecological impacts would be minimal for the LCS 
fishery since bottom longlines are the primary gear type used in the 
LCS fishery. However, this alternative could have a significant impact 
on the smooth dogfish fishery because gillnets are the primary gear 
type used in this fishery. This species is not currently managed under 
a Federal fishery management plan, and a stock assessment has not been 
conducted for this species. If alternative F2, adding smooth dogfish 
under NMFS management, is implemented in conjunction with this 
alternative, then Federal permit holders would not be allowed to land 
smooth dogfish sharks using gillnet gear. Prohibiting this gear would 
result in reduced smooth dogfish landings. The ecological impacts of 
this are unknown since a stock assessment has not been conducted for 
this species.
    This alternative could have a significant negative social and 
economic impact, and would have a considerable impact on the total 
landings per year of SCS. On average, directed shark permit holders 
landed 289,546 lb dw of SCS with gillnet gear. Alternative B2 would 
equate to approximately $365,955 in lost total SCS annual gross 
revenues for directed shark fishermen. On average, incidental shark 
permit holders landed 9,465 lb dw of SCS with gillnet gear per year. 
This alternative would equate to approximately $11,973 in lost SCS 
revenues for incidental shark fishermen. Overall, this represents a 45-
percent reduction in SCS revenues for directed shark fishermen and a 
46-percent reduction in SCS revenues for incidental shark fishermen 
compared to alternative B1. This alternative would have minimal 
negative social and economic impacts on the LCS fishery as most LCS are 
landed with BLL gear.
    Gillnets are also the primary gear type used to catch smooth 
dogfish. As such, removal of this gear type in alternative B2 in 
combination with adding smooth dogfish under NMFS management 
(alternative F2) could have large impacts on the smooth dogfish 
fishery. Because the smooth dogfish fishery is not Federally managed 
and there are no permitting or reporting requirements, NMFS cannot 
estimate the specific impact of closing this fishery. Using vessel trip 
report (VTR) data (primarily a northeast reporting system), an average 
of 213 vessels reported smooth dogfish landings per year between 2004 
and 2007. Within the Coastal Fisheries Logbooks data (primarily a 
southeast reporting system), an average of 10 vessels reported smooth 
dogfish landings per year between 2004 and 2007. As such, NMFS 
estimates approximately 223 vessels catch and land smooth dogfish. 
However, as fishermen are currently not required to have a permit to 
retain smooth dogfish, this could be an underestimate. The landings 
data indicate that total landings from 1998-2007 averaged 950,859 lb dw 
per year, which equates to total annual gross revenues of approximately 
$357,286. This total annual gross revenue, which could be an 
underestimate, would be lost if NMFS prefers both alternative B2 and 
alternative F2.
    Given the potential large negative social and economic impacts of 
alternative B2 to the SCS and LCS fisheries, and given the potentially 
large impacts to the smooth dogfish fishery, NMFS does not prefer this 
alternative at this time.

C. Pelagic Shark Commercial Effort Controls

    NMFS also considered several alternatives to end overfishing of 
shortfin mako sharks ranging from no action to a minimum size to 
establishing a species-specific quota. Specifically, the alternatives 
considered are: alternative C1--no action, keep shortfin mako sharks in 
the pelagic shark species complex and maintain the quota; alternative 
C2--remove shortfin mako sharks from pelagic shark species quota and 
establish a shortfin mako quota; alternative C3--remove shortfin mako 
sharks from pelagic shark species quota and place this species on the 
prohibited shark species list; alternative C4 --establish a commercial 
size limit for shortfin mako sharks; alternative C5--take action at the 
international level to end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks; and 
alternative C6--promote the release of shortfin mako sharks brought to 
fishing vessels alive. Alternative C4 includes two sub-alternatives: 
alternative C4a--establish a minimum size limit for shortfin makos that 
is based on the size at which 50 percent of female shortfin mako sharks 
reach sexual maturity or 108 inches FL (274 cm FL) and alternative 
C4b--establish a minimum size limit for shortfin makos that is based on 
the size at which 50 percent of male shortfin mako sharks reach sexual 
maturity or 73 inches FL (185.4 cm FL). Alternatives C5 and C6 are the 
preferred alternatives.
    Under alternative C5, which is one of the preferred alternatives, 
NMFS would take action under Section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. Section 304(i) provides for the Secretary to take immediate action 
to end overfishing at the international level and to develop both 
domestic and international recommendations for conservation and 
management. ICCAT assumes three shortfin mako shark stocks for 
assessment purposes: northern and southern Atlantic stocks, separated 
at 5[deg] N latitude, and a Mediterranean stock. Based on the 2008 SCRS 
stock assessment on the North Atlantic shortfin mako stock, NMFS 
determined domestically that the North Atlantic stock of shortfin mako 
sharks is experiencing overfishing and approaching an overfished 
status.
    Most shortfin mako shark landings are attributable to the 
recreational fishery. Recreational catches peaked in 1985 at about 
80,000 fish, and ranged from less than 1,400 fish to over 31,000 fish 
in the remaining years. Shortfin mako sharks are also caught 
incidentally in the PLL fishery; fishermen generally do not target 
shortfin mako sharks in the

[[Page 36900]]

United States where shortfin mako sharks are caught incidentally in 
tuna and swordfish fisheries. Shortfin mako shark commercial landings 
have not exceeded 11,000 fish according to available estimates. Pelagic 
longline discards of shortfin mako sharks are generally negligible 
since the meat of this species is highly valued. Total commercial and 
recreational catches ranged from about 5,600 fish in 1998 to almost 
80,000 fish in 1985, when recreational catches peaked.
    U.S. commercial harvest of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks has 
historically been less than ten percent of the recorded total 
international landings, based on ICCAT data from 1997 through 2007. 
Because of the small U.S. contribution to Atlantic shortfin mako shark 
mortality, domestic reductions on shortfin mako shark mortality would 
not end overfishing of the entire North Atlantic stock. For instance, 
there are domestic regulations in place for shortfin mako sharks, such 
as a commercial quota, incidental shark trip limits, a fins-attached 
requirement, and recreational size and bag limits. However, 
implementing additional regulations in the United States only would not 
end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. Therefore, NMFS believes that 
ending overfishing and preventing an overfished status would be better 
accomplished through the procedures set forth in Section 304(i) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The United States would continue to manage its 
relative impact on shortfin mako domestically by maintaining existing 
quota and promoting live release in concert with Alternative C6, while 
taking immediate action at the international level to end overfishing. 
It would develop international recommendations and present them to 
international fisheries organizations, such as ICCAT, where other 
countries that have large takes of shortfin mako sharks could 
participate in shortfin mako shark mortality reductions. These 
recommendations would also be provided to Congress to raise its 
awareness of the need for international action. In the short term, this 
alternative would not result in any negative economic or social impacts 
on commercial fishermen as it would not restrict the retention of 
shortfin mako sharks, nor alter the pelagic shark quota. While this 
alternative would have neutral ecological impacts for shortfin mako 
sharks in the short term, any management recommendations to reduce 
mortality of shortfin mako sharks could have positive ecological 
impacts on shortfin mako sharks in the long term. The long term 
socioeconomic impacts cannot be estimated without knowing the potential 
management recommendations. NMFS expects in the long term that 
alternative C5 would render larger benefits to the species because 
other nations would help reduce overall mortality of the species.
    Under Alternative C6, the second preferred alternative in this 
section, NMFS would promote the live release of shortfin mako sharks in 
the commercial shark fishery. This alternative could have slight 
positive or neutral ecological benefits for shortfin mako sharks 
because 69 percent are brought to the vessel alive and could be 
released. This action does not restrict commercial harvest and landing 
of shortfin mako sharks that are alive at haulback, and therefore, 
would have no adverse social or economic impacts. If promoting live 
release is successful, it could reduce landings and dead discards of 
shortfin mako. Because this alternative could have positive ecological 
impacts with minimal social and economic impacts, NMFS is preferring 
this alternative at this time.
    Alternative C1 is the no action alternative and would maintain the 
existing regulations for shortfin mako sharks. The current commercial 
quota for common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako sharks 
is 488 mt dw. This alternative would likely maintain fishing mortality 
of shortfin mako sharks at current levels, and therefore, could have 
negative ecological impacts based on the 2008 ICCAT stock assessment. 
From 2004 to 2007, the average annual commercial shortfin mako shark 
landings were 72.5 mt dw. However, the existing 488 mt dw commercial 
quota for shortfin mako, common thresher, and oceanic whitetip sharks 
has not been reached to date and could allow landings of shortfin mako 
to increase.
    Alternative C1 would likely not result in any adverse economic or 
social impacts as the no action alternative would not substantially 
modify or alter commercial fishing practices for shortfin mako sharks 
or other shark species. Based on the average landings from 2004--2007 
and an ex-vessel price per pound of $1.59, shortfin mako shark landings 
are worth approximately $254,135 in annual gross revenues. However, as 
stated above, landings could increase. If the landings of shortfin mako 
sharks continue at current levels or increase, this could lead to 
further overfishing, negative ecological impacts, and potentially to 
the stock being overfished. Therefore, NMFS does not prefer alternative 
C1 at this time.
    Alternative C2 would remove shortfin mako sharks from the pelagic 
shark species quota, and would establish a species-specific quota for 
shortfin mako sharks based on U.S. landings. Currently, the annual 
quota for common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako is 488 
mt dw. Based on the average commercial landings of shortfin mako sharks 
from 2004-2007, the species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks 
would be 72.5 mt dw. The common thresher and oceanic whitetip sharks 
would be allocated a quota of 415.5 mt dw after removal of the shortfin 
mako quota of 72.5 mt dw (488 mt dw-72.5 mt dw = 415.5 mt dw). Removing 
shortfin mako sharks from this group of pelagic sharks would allow them 
to be managed separately and would give NMFS the ability to track 
shortfin mako landings more efficiently and would cap overall shortfin 
mako landings at the current landings level. The 2008 ICCAT stock 
assessment did not recommend a TAC. Therefore, it is difficult to 
determine if setting a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks 
at the level of current U.S. commercial landings would have positive 
ecological benefits for the stock. However, setting a quota of 72.5 mt 
dw would maintain fishing mortality at current levels and prevent 
commercial landings from increasing, which may provide more ecological 
benefits than maintaining the quota at 488 mt dw for common thresher, 
oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako sharks. Because there are no 
current stock assessments for oceanic whitetip or common thresher, it 
is difficult to determine the ecological impacts of setting a quota of 
415.5 mt dw for these two species. Current average commercial landings 
from 2004 to 2007 for common thresher and oceanic whitetip combined, 
were 17.5 mt dw. It is not expected that the level of fishing effort or 
mortality would increase under this alternative and, therefore, 
alternative C2 would likely have neutral ecological impacts for common 
thresher and oceanic whitetip sharks.
    Alternative C2 would have neutral or slightly negative 
socioeconomic impacts. On average, 72.5 mt dw of shortfin mako sharks 
was commercially landed between 2004 and 2007. Based on an ex-vessel 
price per pound of $1.59, this is equivalent to $254,135 in annual 
gross revenues. While fishermen would be able to maintain current 
fishing effort under this alternative, any increase in effort would be 
restricted by the species-specific quota of 72.5 mt dw. Thus, if the 
quota is reduced to 72.5 mt dw, which equals $254,135 in average

[[Page 36901]]

annual gross revenues, this could potentially result in a loss of 
average annual gross revenues of $1,456,458 for commercial fishermen if 
the entire 488 mt dw pelagic shark quota were landed as shortfin mako 
sharks. However, it is unlikely that 488 mt dw of shortfin mako would 
be landed as shortfin mako is an incidental catch in the PLL fishery. 
Therefore, this alternative could result in neutral or slightly 
negative socioeconomic impacts for commercial fishermen. NMFS does not 
prefer this alternative at this time because the United States 
contributes a small portion of the overall shortfin mako mortality in 
the North Atlantic, the 2008 stock assessment did not recommend a TAC 
for this species, and ICCAT has not set a species-specific quota for 
shortfin mako sharks.
    Alternative C3 would add shortfin mako sharks to the prohibited 
species list. Adding shortfin mako sharks to the prohibited species 
list would make it illegal to retain and land shortfin mako sharks 
commercially or recreationally. Shark species can be added to the 
prohibited species list if two of the following four criteria are met: 
(1) There is sufficient biological information to indicate the stock 
warrants protection, such as indications of depletion or low 
reproductive potential or the species is on the ESA candidate list; (2) 
the species is rarely encountered or observed caught in HMS fisheries; 
(3) the species is not commonly encountered or observed caught as 
bycatch in fishing operations; or (4) the species is difficult to 
distinguish from other prohibited species (i.e., look-alike issue). 
Shortfin mako could meet criteria (1) and (4). NMFS determined that 
shortfin mako sharks were experiencing overfishing based on the 2008 
ICCAT stock assessment. In addition, shortfin mako sharks look similar 
to other sharks on the prohibited species list (i.e., white and longfin 
mako sharks). This alternative would likely have neutral or slightly 
positive ecological impacts for this stock. Average commercial landings 
of shortfin mako sharks from 2004 to 2007 were 72.5 mt dw, and were 
well below the 488 mt dw quota as they are primarily caught as 
incidental catch in the PLL fishery, and there is no directed 
commercial fishery for this species. In addition, the United States 
does not contribute a significant proportion of Atlantic-wide fishing 
mortality of shortfin mako sharks. According to observer reports from 
1992-2006, 68.9 percent of shortfin mako sharks are brought to the 
vessel alive and 30.1 percent come to the vessel dead. Also, of the 
shortfin mako sharks that are caught, 61 percent are kept, 22 percent 
are discarded alive, and 10 percent are discarded dead. Although 
prohibiting the retention of shortfin mako sharks may have more 
positive ecological impacts for this stock than alternative C2, this 
alternative could also result in a slight increase of dead discards.
    Alternative C3 would have negative economic impacts for commercial 
fishermen because, even though it is not a species that is targeted by 
commercial fishermen, when it is caught, it is often kept due to its 
high value and suitability for consumption relative to other shark 
species. Based on an ex-vessel price of $1.59 per lb, PLL fishermen 
make approximately $254,135 in annual gross revenues from shortfin mako 
sharks. If shortfin mako sharks were added to the prohibited species 
list, fishermen would no longer be able to land shortfin mako sharks 
and would therefore lose the associated shortfin mako shark revenue. 
This alternative could also lead to increased operation time if 
commercial fishermen have to release and discard all shortfin makos 
that are caught on PLL gear. In addition, if the commercial PLL fleet 
expands in the future, placing shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited 
species list could result in a loss of future revenues for the 
commercial PLL fishery. Although prohibiting the retention of shortfin 
mako sharks may have more positive ecological impacts for this stock 
than alternative C2, this alternative could also result in increased 
dead discards. Therefore, NMFS does not prefer alternative C3 at this 
time.
    Alternative C4 would establish a commercial size limit for shortfin 
mako sharks. Currently, there is no commercial size limit for shortfin 
mako sharks; therefore, establishing a size limit would result in 
varying degrees of ecological and economic impacts. The DEIS examines 
two size limits for shortfin mako sharks, one based on the size of 
sexual maturity of females (alternative C4a--108 inches FL or 274 cm 
FL) and one based on the size of sexual maturity of males (alternative 
C4b--73 inches FL or 185.4 cm FL). Because shortfin mako sharks are 
dressed at sea by the commercial fleet, a minimum FL measurement would 
be ineffective in enforcing a size limit. Therefore, an interdorsal 
length (IDL) measurement (the straight line measurement from the base 
of the trailing edge of the first dorsal fin to the base of the leading 
edge of the second dorsal fin) would be utilized.
    NMFS analyzed both the PLL observer program (POP) data and the HMS 
logbook data to determine the percentage of shortfin mako sharks that 
are currently landed that would be released alive or dead if commercial 
size limits in alternatives C4a and C4b were implemented. The full 
analysis can be found in the DEIS. Because the commercial fishery 
harvests so many sharks above either size limit and so few sharks below 
the minimum size limits, NMFS believes that the size limits considered 
under these two sub-alternative would have minimal increases in the 
number of sharks released alive. NMFS also assumes that not all 
shortfin mako sharks that are kept are alive when reaching the vessel. 
Thus, imposing a size could lead to an increase in dead discards. It is 
important to note that because the shortfin mako sharks that would have 
been dead discards under alternative C4 would have been traditionally 
kept, no additional shortfin mako shark mortality would be associated 
with the increase in dead discards.
    Alternatives C4a and C4b would both result in minor positive 
ecological impacts to the shortfin mako stock, as more shortfin mako 
sharks would be released alive than under the alternative C1. The 
positive impacts are less for C4b than for C4a because there are fewer 
shortfin mako sharks released alive under alternative C4a. Also, 
retention of immature female sharks would still be allowed in 
alternative C4b because the size limit would be set at the size at 
which 50 percent of all male shortfin mako sharks reach sexual 
maturity, which is lower than the size at which 50 percent of all 
female shortfin mako sharks reach sexual maturity. Alternative C4a 
would result in the live release of 84 more shortfin mako sharks per 
year than alternative C4b, and retention of immature females would be 
minimized because the size limit would equal the size at which 50 
percent of all females reach sexual maturity.
    Alternatives C4a and C4b would both have minimal economic impacts, 
because only a small percentage of commercial landings would be 
affected by the size restrictions. Under alternative C4a, NMFS 
estimates that the annual gross revenues lost from the sale of meat and 
fins of shortfin mako sharks would be $4,513. Under alternative C4b, 
NMFS estimates that the annual gross revenue loss to be approximately 
$75. Given the relatively small number of additional live releases of 
shortfin mako sharks under either alternative C4a or C4b, NMFS does not 
prefer either alternative at this time.

D. SCS Recreational Effort Controls

    NMFS considered several alternatives regarding the SCS recreational 
fishery. Specifically, the alternatives considered

[[Page 36902]]

are: alternative D1--no action, maintain current recreational retention 
limit for SCS; alternative D2--modify the minimum recreational size 
(currently 54 inches FL or 137 cm FL) for blacknose sharks based on 
their biology and/or introduce a slot limit where smaller or larger 
individuals can be landed; alternative D3--increase the retention limit 
for Atlantic sharpnose sharks based on current catches; and alternative 
D4--prohibit retention of blacknose sharks in the recreational shark 
fisheries. Alternative D4 is the preferred alternative.
    Under alternative D4, NMFS would prohibit the retention of 
blacknose sharks in the recreational shark fishery. Recreational 
fishermen would likely still catch blacknose sharks as they are fishing 
for other species, however, they would not be permitted to retain 
blacknose sharks and would have to release them. This alternative could 
have positive ecological impacts for the stock to the extent that 
recreational landings of blacknose sharks in Federal waters are 
reduced. Current regulations (alternative D1) prohibit landing any 
blacknose sharks that are under 54 inches FL (137 cm FL). Few, if any 
blacknose sharks reach that minimum size. As such, few blacknose sharks 
should be landed under the current regulations by Federally permitted 
anglers. To the extent that individual States mirror Federal 
regulations, blacknose shark recreational landings could also be 
reduced in State waters.
    Given that current State recreational catch rates are approximately 
6,958 blacknose sharks per year and total (Federal and State) blacknose 
shark recreational landings are approximately 10,360 blacknose per 
year, NMFS assumes that blacknose shark landings would be reduced by at 
least 3,403 blacknose sharks per year under alternative D4. However, in 
order to achieve the TAC, blacknose shark recreational landings would 
need to be reduced by 78 percent or to 2,280 blacknose sharks per year 
(see alternative D1). Thus, cooperation by individual States to 
prohibit the retention of blacknose sharks in State waters and the 
ASMFC would be essential to achieving the mortality reduction required 
to achieve the TAC recommended by the latest stock assessment to 
rebuild the blacknose shark stock.
    Alternative D4 could have negative social and economic impacts on 
recreational fishermen, including tournaments and charter/headboats, if 
the prohibition of blacknose sharks resulted in fewer charters. 
However, since blacknose sharks are not one of the primary species 
targeted by recreational anglers in tournaments or on charters, NMFS 
does not anticipate large negative social and economic impacts from 
this preferred alternative in tournaments or in the charter/headboat 
sector.
    The preferred alternative would reduce the number of blacknose 
sharks recreationally landed in Federal waters and would help to 
achieve the overall TAC of 19,200 blacknose sharks killed per year. The 
other alternatives to no action and modifying the minimum size limit 
(see below) would not achieve the reduction in mortality of blacknose 
sharks and reach the TAC recommendation. Also, increasing the retention 
limit of Atlantic sharpnose sharks could cause overfishing to occur 
under alternative D3. Thus, NMFS believes, at this time, that 
alternative D4, the preferred alternative, would be the best method to 
improve the status of the SCS species and rebuild blacknose sharks.
    Under alternative D1, the no action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain the existing recreational retention limits for SCS. 
Recreational anglers are currently allowed one shark of any species per 
vessel per trip with a minimum size of 54 inches FL (137 cm FL). In 
addition, anglers are allowed one bonnethead shark and one Atlantic 
sharpnose shark per person per trip with no minimum size. Since there 
would be no change to the retention or size limits under alternative 
D1, the ecological impacts associated with this alternative would be 
neutral for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, finetooth sharks, and many 
other species of shark as all species were not determined to be 
overfished and overfishing is not occurring. This alternative could 
have negative ecological impacts on blacknose sharks as blacknose 
sharks were determined to be overfished with overfishing occurring. 
Without reductions in current blacknose shark recreational landings, 
NMFS would not be able to achieve the TAC of 19,200 blacknose sharks 
per year recommended by the 2007 blacknose shark stock assessment. 
However, blacknose sharks rarely, if ever, reach 54 inches FL as a 
maximum size. As such, under current regulations, most blacknose sharks 
should not be landed in Federal waters. NMFS does not expect this 
alternative to have any negative social or economic impacts in the 
short-term. Since this alternative would not reduce blacknose shark 
recreational landings, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this 
time.
    Alternative D2 would modify the minimum recreational size for 
blacknose sharks based on their biology. The current minimum size is 
based on the size at which 50 percent of female sandbar sharks reach 
sexual maturity. A minimum size for blacknose sharks that corresponds 
to the size at which 50 percent of the female blacknose sharks reach 
sexual maturity is 3 ft FL (91.4 cm FL). Alternative D2 would lower the 
current minimum size for blacknose sharks and could lead to increased 
landings of blacknose sharks compared to the status quo. According to 
data from the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey (MRFSS), 
the average length of blacknose sharks landed by recreational anglers 
is less than 3 ft FL (91.4 cm FL). As such, this alternative would 
restrict landings to sexually mature fish and, thus, could have some 
ecological benefit if the average length of blacknose sharks landed 
increases as a result. However, this alternative could increase 
landings of blacknose sharks, contrary to the TAC recommended by the 
2007 SCS stock assessment. Since decreasing the minimum size for 
blacknose sharks would likely result in increased landings of blacknose 
sharks, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative D3 would increase the retention limit for Atlantic 
sharpnose sharks based on their current catches and stock status. Based 
on the 2007 stock assessment for Atlantic sharpnose, the biomass for 
Atlantic sharpnose sharks is falling towards the maximum sustainable 
yield (B<INF>MSY</INF>) threshold. While the stock is not currently 
overfished or experiencing overfishing, the latest stock assessment 
suggests that increasing fishing efforts, such as increasing the 
retention limit of Atlantic sharpnose sharks, could result in an 
overfished status and/or cause overfishing to occur in the future. Any 
increase in the retention limit for Atlantic sharpnose sharks would 
provide positive social and economic impacts, especially if this 
resulted in more charter trips for charter/headboats. However, since 
increasing the retention limit for Atlantic sharpnose sharks could 
result in increased fishing effort and result in negative ecological 
impacts for the stock, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this 
time.

E. Pelagic Shark Recreational Effort Controls

    NMFS considered similar alternatives for recreational pelagic shark 
measures to end overfishing of shortfin mako as were considered for 
commercial pelagic shark management measures. Specifically, the 
alternatives considered for pelagic sharks in the recreational fishery 
are: Alternative E1--no action, maintain the current recreational

[[Page 36903]]

measures for shortfin mako sharks; alternative E2--increase the 
recreational minimum size limit of shortfin mako sharks; alternative 
E3--take action at the international level to end overfishing of 
shortfin mako sharks; alternative E4--promote the release of shortfin 
mako sharks brought to fishing vessels alive; and alternative E5--
prohibit landing of shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery 
(catch and release only). Alternative E2 has two sub-alternatives: 
alternative E2a--establish a minimum size limit for shortfin makos that 
is based on the size at which 50 percent of female shortfin mako sharks 
reach sexual maturity or 108 in FL and alternative E2b--establish a 
minimum size limit for shortfin makos that is based on the size at 
which 50 percent of male shortfin mako sharks reach sexual maturity or 
73 inches FL. Alternatives E3 and E4 are the preferred alternatives.
    Under alternative E3, NMFS would take immediate action at the 
international level to develop binding management measures with other 
nation to end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. As discussed under 
alternative C5, above, the recreational fishery contributes to most of 
the U.S. landings, and the United States contributes only a minor 
portion of the mortality for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. 
Therefore, NMFS believes that ending overfishing and preventing an 
overfished status would best be accomplished through international 
management measures established at international organizations such as 
ICCAT. While this alternative would have neutral ecological, social, 
and economic impacts for shortfin mako sharks in the short term, any 
management recommendations adopted at the international level to help 
protect shortfin mako sharks could have positive ecological impacts on 
shortfin mako sharks in the long term.
    Under alternative E4, NMFS would promote the live release of 
shortfin mako sharks in the recreational shark fishery. This 
alternative would not result in any changes in the current recreational 
regulations regarding shortfin mako sharks. Recreational shark 
fishermen would still be able to retain one authorized shark species 
greater than 54 inches FL per vessel per trip, and one Atlantic 
sharpnose and one bonnethead shark per person per trip. While this 
alternative is expected to have neutral ecological impacts to the 
shortfin mako shark stock in the short term, NMFS would encourage the 
catch and release of live shortfin mako sharks. This alternative is 
also expected to have neutral social and economic impacts. If any 
management recommendations are adopted at the international level to 
help protect shortfin mako sharks under the preferred alternative E3, 
NMFS would implement those recommendations, which, in combination with 
alternative E4, could have positive ecological impacts on shortfin mako 
sharks in the long term.
    Under alternative E1, the no action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain the current recreational shark fishing regulations that 
pertain to shortfin mako sharks established in the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP. The current bag limit for HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat 
permit holders is one authorized shark species greater than 54 inches 
FL (137 cm FL) per vessel per trip, and one Atlantic sharpnose and one 
bonnethead shark per person per trip. Alternative E1 would likely not 
result in any adverse economic or social impacts as the No Action 
alternative would not substantially modify or alter recreational 
fishing practices for shortfin mako sharks or other shark species. 
Alternative E1 would also not aid in ending overfishing. As such, NMFS 
does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative E2 would increase the current recreational size limit 
for shortfin mako sharks. Currently, the recreational size limit for 
shortfin mako sharks is 54 inches FL (137 cm FL); therefore, increasing 
this size limit could result in varying degrees of ecological and 
economic impacts. NMFS analyzed two size limits for shortfin mako 
sharks, one based on the size of sexual maturity of females 
(alternative E2a--108 inches FL or 274 cm FL) and one based on the size 
of sexual maturity of males (alternative E2b--73 inches FL or 185.4 cm 
FL).
    According to the LPS tournament data, 1.4 percent of shortfin mako 
sharks landed were below the current 54 inches FL minimum size, 100 
percent were below the 108 inches FL size limit in alternative E2a, and 
51 percent were below the 73 inches FL size limit in alternative E2b.
    Based on non-tournament landings of shortfin mako sharks, 4 percent 
were below the current 54 inches FL minimum size, 98 percent were under 
the 108 inches FL minimum size in alternative E2a, and 81 percent were 
under the 73 inches minimum size under alternative E2b. Positive 
ecological impacts are estimated for both alternatives E2a and E2b, as 
both alternatives could lead to a large proportion of the 
recreationally caught shortfin mako sharks being released alive (99.5 
and 81 percent, respectively). Alternative E2a would release 65 percent 
more shortfin mako sharks alive than alternative E2b (3,664 to 2,220 
sharks, respectively). Alternative E2a would also have the most severe 
economic impacts, as almost all of the shortfin mako sharks reported 
landed (99.5 percent) were smaller than the 108 inches FL (274.3 cm FL) 
size limit and, therefore, would have to be released. This alternative 
would basically create a catch and release fishery for shortfin mako 
sharks. The impacts of alternative E2b would be less severe than 
alternative E2a, but would result in a 60 percent overall reduction in 
recreational shortfin mako shark landings. Under alternative E2b, the 
economic impacts would be greater on the non-tournament recreational 
mako shark fishery, as 81 percent of those landings would fall below 
the 73 inches FL size limit. According to LPS data, 41 percent of 
shortfin mako sharks caught are kept; therefore, the size limits 
considered in alternatives E2 could have a substantial economic impact 
on the recreational fishery. Given this and the need for international 
cooperation in ending overfishing of shortfin mako sharks, NMFS is not 
preferring either alternative E2a or E2b at this time.
    Alternative E5 would prohibit the landings of shortfin mako sharks 
in the recreational fishery by placing shortfin mako sharks on the 
prohibited species list. Placing shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited 
species list would make the recreational fishery a catch and release 
fishery for this species. As described above under alternative C3, 
shark species can only be added to the prohibited species list if they 
meet two of four specific criteria. Shortfin mako sharks meet two of 
those criteria. According to recreational landings data, on average 
3,682 shortfin mako sharks were landed from 2004 to 2007. Because of 
the number of shortfin mako sharks taken in the recreational fishery is 
small relative to the number of shortfin mako sharks taken by other 
countries, placing this species on the prohibited species list is 
likely to have neutral or slightly positive ecological impacts. In the 
United States, shortfin mako sharks are an important fishing tournament 
species. In 2007, there were 42 shark tournaments throughout the U.S. 
Atlantic Coast, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. 
Therefore, adding this species to the prohibited species list could 
lead to negative socioeconomic impacts for recreational fishermen, 
including those who participate in recreational shark tournaments, who 
would no longer be able to retain this species during recreational 
fishing or tournaments.

[[Page 36904]]

Given this and the need for international cooperation in ending 
overfishing of shortfin mako sharks, NMFS is not preferring alternative 
E5 at this time.

F. The Addition of Smooth Dogfish Under NMFS Management

    NMFS currently manages four shark management units (small coastal 
sharks, pelagic sharks, large coastal sharks, and prohibited species). 
There are additional species of sharks that fall outside of the current 
management units but remain under Secretarial authority should the 
Secretary determine the species is in need of conservation and 
management. One of these species, smooth dogfish, is not currently 
managed at the Federal level. The Magnuson-Stevens Act tasks the 
Secretary of Commerce with regulating oceanic shark species within the 
U.S. EEZ. NMFS has determined that smooth dogfish is an oceanic shark 
species. The lack of previous management measures for this species 
complicates new regulations due to a lack of data regarding landings, 
fishing effort, or participants in the fishery. Due to increasing 
concerns regarding the lack of management of smooth dogfish along with 
the addition of smooth dogfish to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission (ASMFC) Interstate Coastal Shark FMP, NMFS is considering 
several alternatives regarding smooth dogfish. In addition, any 
management measures implemented for smooth dogfish would also apply to 
Florida smoothhounds (Mustelus norrisi). Emerging molecular and 
morphological research has determined that Florida smoothhounds have 
been misclassified as a separate species from smooth dogfish (Jones, 
pers. comm.). Because of this taxonomic correction, Florida 
smoothhounds would be considered smooth dogfish and would fall under 
all smooth dogfish management measures, such as permit requirements and 
quotas. Specifically, the alternatives considered for smooth dogfish 
are: Alternative F1--no action, do not add smooth dogfish under NMFS 
management; alternative F2--add smooth dogfish under NMFS management 
and develop management measures, such as a Federal permit requirement 
and establishment of a commercial quota; and alternative F3--add smooth 
dogfish under NMFS management and mirror management measures 
implemented in the ASMFC Interstate Coastal Shark FMP. Alternative F2 
is the preferred alternative. Under alternative F2, there are also 
several sub-alternatives: alternative F2a1--establish a smooth dogfish 
quota that is equal to the average annual landings from 1998-2007 
(950,859 lb dw); alternative F2a2 -establish a smooth dogfish quota 
equal to the maximum annual landing between 1998-2007 (1,270,137 lb 
dw); alternative F2a3--establish a smooth dogfish quota equal to the 
maximum annual landing between 1998-2007 plus one standard deviation 
(1,423,727 lb dw); alternative F2b1--establish a separate smooth 
dogfish set-aside quota for the exempted fishing program (6 mt ww); and 
alternative F2b2--establish a smooth dogfish set-aside quota for the 
exempted fishing program and add it to the current 60 mt ww set-aside 
quota for the exempted fishing program (66 mt ww). Alternatives F2 and 
sub-alternatives F2a3 and F2b1 are the preferred alternatives.
    Smooth dogfish are currently not managed by NMFS and stock data is 
sparse. From 1999 through 2003, NMFS included smooth dogfish under NMFS 
management in order to prevent finning; no other management measures 
were implemented. Given this lack of management, there is a lack of 
stock status information, participant information, and effort data. 
This lack of data complicates the ecological impact analysis of the 
alternatives for smooth dogfish. Alternatives F2 and F3 would both 
establish Federal management measures and alternative F2 would begin, 
through dealer reports and a Federal permit requirement, data 
collection of smooth dogfish catch and effort data.
    Alternative F2, the preferred alternative, would implement Federal 
management of smooth dogfish and establish a permit requirement for 
commercial and recreational retention of smooth dogfish in Federal 
waters. Commercial fishermen would be required to obtain a new open-
access commercial smooth dogfish permit in order to retain smooth 
dogfish in Federal waters. Recreational fishermen would be required to 
obtain an existing Federal HMS recreational fishing permit in order to 
retain smooth dogfish in Federal waters, and Federal shark dealers 
would be required to obtain an existing Federal shark permit in order 
to purchase smooth dogfish from Federally-permitted commercial shark 
fishermen. This alternative would also require that all fins be 
naturally attached, and that Federally permitted dealers report 
landings of smooth dogfish as is required for other shark species. This 
alternative would also provide NMFS the ability to select vessels to 
carry an observer. These management measures would focus on 
characterizing the fishery and are not intended to actively change 
catch levels or rates. This alternative would not, at this time, create 
any new requirement for fishermen to report landings. Rather, NMFS 
would collect landings information through Federal dealers. Over time, 
NMFS may implement logbook or other reporting for smooth dogfish 
fishermen, as needed. NMFS would not do this, however, until the 
universe of fishermen is known and until NMFS can determine the 
appropriate mechanism of reporting without duplicating current 
reporting requirements. Despite the lack of management, many fishermen 
in the mid-Atlantic region have been reporting their landings. Some of 
these fishermen have Federal permits for other species and are required 
to report all landings, including smooth dogfish, due to the 
regulations in those other fisheries. Other fishermen do not have 
Federal permits and report smooth dogfish landings voluntarily. These 
landings and the number of vessels reporting these landings have 
remained fairly constant since the late 1990s. Similarly, at this time, 
this alternative would not require fishermen to attend the protected 
species release, disentanglement, and identification workshops. As NMFS 
gathers information about the fishery and the fishermen, NMFS may 
require fishermen attend these workshops as is required in other HMS 
longline and gillnet fisheries if appropriate. Accordingly, NMFS does 
not expect alternative F2 to have significant positive or negative 
ecological impacts, except that commercial fishermen would have to 
purchase an open access smooth dogfish commercial fishing permit, 
dealers would be required to report smooth dogfish on HMS dealer 
reports or through the Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System 
(SAFIS), and recreational fishermen would need to purchase the 
appropriate HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat permit. In the future, data 
that comes from the measures in this alternative could support effort 
restrictions if the stock is deemed to be overfished and/or have 
overfishing occurring. If a Federal permitting system creates enough of 
an inconvenience as to reduce the number of participants in the 
fishery, reduced effort would likely result in positive ecological 
impacts.
    Gillnets are the primary gear type in the smooth dogfish fishery 
and if the fishery is brought under Federal management, fishermen using 
gillnets to target smooth dogfish would continue to be required to 
comply with Federal marine mammal take reduction programs mandated in 
the Marine

[[Page 36905]]

Mammal Protection Act at 50 CFR 229.32. Positive ecological impacts are 
expected from this compliance due to a decreased risk of marine mammal 
interactions with smooth dogfish gillnets. Fishermen would also be 
required to attach their gillnet to their vessel and perform net checks 
at least every two hours (the net can be detached from the vessel 
during net checks).
    As described above, on January 16, 2009, NMFS published NSG1 for 
implementing the annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measures 
(AM) requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (74 FR 3178). As such, if 
NMFS adds smooth dogfish under NMFS management, NMFS must also 
establish an ACL and AMs for the fishery. The five sub-alternatives 
under alternative F2 address this issue by examining possible overall 
quota levels and set-aside quota levels for the smooth dogfish fishery. 
NMFS will use the process as outlined above to establish ACLs and AMs 
for the smooth dogfish fishery. Each sub-alternative aims for minimal 
disruption with the current level of utilization and is not expected to 
have any additional ecological impacts beyond those for Alternative F2.
    While data regarding stock status and participants in the fishery 
is sparse, a number of sources exist that summarize any reports of 
smooth dogfish catches. These sources, particularly the Atlantic 
Cooperative Catch Statistical Program (ACCSP) for commercial catches 
and the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey (MRFSS) for 
recreational catches, offer insight into the current state of the 
fishery. A third source, NMFS Office of Science and Technology's (S&T) 
Annual Commercial Landings Statistics, available on the S&T Web page, 
is also available, however, this system only contains non-confidential 
landings data and does not report any confidential data. For this 
reason, ACCSP data was used instead of S&T data for analysis, and NMFS 
has determined that these are the best available data at this time. 
Based on ACCSP data, in the commercial fishery, an average of 1,321,695 
lb whole weight (ww) of smooth dogfish were retained per year. Of this 
whole weight, 950,860 lbs of dressed weight (dw) fish and 47,543 lb of 
fins would be available for sale (using a conversion of 1.39 for ww to 
dw, and 5 percent of dw for shark fins). Using the median ex-vessel 
price of these products between 2004 and 2007 ($0.29 for smooth dogfish 
flesh and $2.02 for smooth dogfish fins), the fishery averaged $371,786 
in value per year. Utilizing VTR and Coastal Logbook data between 2004 
and 2007, NMFS estimates that approximately 223 commercial vessels 
would likely require a smooth dogfish permit.
    In the recreational fishery, based on MRFSS data from 2004 to 2007, 
an average of 58,161 smooth dogfish were retained per year out of a 
total annual average of 177,456,965 for all finfish in the Atlantic and 
Gulf of Mexico. NMFS has determined that the MRFSS data are the best 
available data on the recreational smooth dogfish fishery at this time. 
Implementing Federal management of smooth dogfish through alternative 
F2 would focus on characterizing the fishery, and would not actively 
change catch levels or rates. Therefore, alternative F2 would likely 
not have significant positive or negative social or economic impacts. 
Based on MRFSS data from 2004 to 2007, an average of 58,161 smooth 
dogfish were retained per year in the recreational fishery. This number 
is likely the upper limit of participants in the Federal recreational 
fishery of the species, and is likely lower since multiple individual 
fish are expected to have been caught by one fisherman. Furthermore, 
based on the life history of the species and the fact the most 
recreational fisherman are shore-based, the vast majority of smooth 
dogfish caught recreationally are in coastal, State waters and would 
not require a Federal HMS Angling category permit. Of those that fish 
in Federal waters, the nominal fee of $16.00 for a recreational HMS 
Angling category permit is not expected to create an impediment to 
entering or remaining in the fishery.
    Based upon mandates in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage sharks 
and the desire to fully characterize the fishery, NMFS prefers the 
alternative to add smooth dogfish under NMFS management and implement a 
Federal permit requirement. NMFS also prefers a quota equal to the 
maximum annual landings plus one standard deviation between the years 
1998 and 2007. This quota would allow the fishery to operate as it has 
under the status quo. The set-aside quota of 6 mt ww, alternative F2b1, 
would allow for continued research on the species as well as some 
limited collection for public display. Ecological and socioeconomic 
impacts are expected to be minimal since no restrictions would be 
placed on the fishery beyond a Federal permit. Fees associated with the 
permit would be minimal and are not expected to create any impediment 
to entering or remaining in the fishery.
    The alternative F1, no action, would not likely have any ecological 
impacts beyond the status quo. Inherent in the no action alternative, 
however, is a continued lack of data regarding numbers of participants 
in the fishery, and catch and effort information that could be used to 
determine stock status for smooth dogfish. If current fishing effort is 
putting too much pressure on the stock, negative ecological impacts 
could persist but continue to go undocumented. Alternative F1 would 
likely not have any new social or economic impacts beyond the status 
quo, as no action would be taken. Any potential impacts, however, would 
be either neutral or negative. If, in the absence of catch and effort 
data, the stock is undergoing excessive fishing pressure, future stock 
declines would likely have negative social and economic impacts. 
Alternatively, if the stock is, in actuality, underutilized, missed 
harvest potential could result.
    Alternative F3 would also implement Federal management of the 
species, however, NMFS management measures would mirror and/or 
complement, to the extent practicable, ASMFC measures. NMFS is 
cognizant of differences in mandates and missions between itself and 
ASMFC. Current ASMFC regulations in the Interstate Fishery Management 
Plan for Atlantic Coastal Sharks include smooth dogfish commercial 
measures. There are no minimum size limits and no commercial possession 
limits in the fishery, but recreational fishermen are limited to a 
maximum of two smooth dogfish per day (one Federally-permitted shark 
species or smooth dogfish plus one additional Atlantic sharpnose, one 
additional bonnethead, and one additional smooth dogfish). Smooth 
dogfish must have tails and fins naturally attached through offloading, 
and gillnet gear must be checked at least every two hours to minimize 
protected species impacts.
    ASMFC is currently amending the management measures for smooth 
dogfish. Specifically, ASMFC is considering an exception for smooth 
dogfish to allow at-sea processing (i.e., removal of shark fins while 
still onboard a fishing vessel), removal of recreational retention 
limits for smooth dogfish, and removal of the two hour net-check 
requirement for shark gillnets. The at-sea processing would require a 5 
percent fin-to-carcass ratio and allow for the removal of fins. As 
such, it is difficult to assess the specific impacts of this 
alternative. It is reasonable, though, to assume that any ecological 
impacts will either be neutral or positive. At this time, NMFS is not 
preferring alternative F3 for several reasons. First, ASMFC is 
considering removing the fins attached

[[Page 36906]]

requirement for smooth dogfish. NMFS recently implemented the fins 
attached regulation for all Atlantic sharks for enforcement and species 
identification reasons and would not want to open a loophole that would 
hinder enforcement. Additionally, both the House of Representatives and 
the Senate are reviewing bills that, if approved and signed by the 
President, would apply the fins attached requirement to all sharks in 
Federal waters. Second, ASMFC has not established a quota for the 
smooth dogfish fishery. As noted above, NMFS is required to establish 
ACLs and AMs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Third, ASMFC has not 
established a permitting requirement. NMFS believes that permitting is 
the first step to gaining information about the fishery. Thus, NMFS is 
not preferring to mirror the ASMFC regulations at this time. 
Nonetheless, if NMFS implements alternative F2, NMFS would continue to 
work with ASMFC to ensure Federal and State regulations are consistent 
to the extent practicable.

Administrative Actions to 50 CFR Part 229

    NMFS also regulates the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 
fishery under Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) 
regulations at 50 CFR part 229. The ALWTRP regulations allow shark 
gillnet fishing, under certain circumstances, in the Southeast U.S. 
Restricted Area, Other Southeast Gillnet Waters Area, and the Southeast 
U.S. Monitoring Area. Certain provisions of this rule would entirely 
eliminate the shark gillnet fishery in South Carolina and south. 
Therefore, to avoid regulatory conflicts, NMFS proposes to remove 
exemptions for shark gillnet fishing at 50 CFR 229.2, 229.3 and 229.32 
that would otherwise be prohibited by these proposed changes.
    1. Section 229.2. NMFS is deleting the definition of ``spotter 
plane'', which only pertains to the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark 
gillnet fishery.
    2. Section 229.3(l). NMFS is removing exemptions for shark gillnet 
fishing, which applies to regulated waters south of South Carolina.
    3. Section 229.32(a), (b), (f), (g), and (h). NMFS is updating the 
ALWTRP regulations to reflect parts of this action which would prohibit 
the use of gillnet gear to harvest sharks from South Carolina and 
south.

Administrative Actions to 50 CFR Part 635

    In addition to the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS and described 
above, NMFS is also proposing some administrative actions to clarify, 
correct, and update the existing regulations. None of these 
administrative actions are expected to have any economic, social, or 
ecological impacts.
    1. Section 635.5(b). Since implementation of Amendment 2 to the 
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS has received several questions about 
the changes to dealer reports for shark fin and meat information. As 
such, NMFS proposes clarifications to its intent.
    2. Section 635.20(e). The regulations regarding the recreational 
retention limit for sharks need to be clarified. As such, NMFS is 
proposing modified language to clarify that only one shark per vessel 
per trip can be taken along with one bonnethead and one Atlantic 
sharpnose shark per person per trip.
    3. Section 635.21(d). In Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, 
NMFS implemented several closures per the request of the South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). The name of one of those areas did 
not match the name that the SAFMC finalized. As such, NMFS is proposing 
to rename ``South Carolina A'' as ``Northern South Carolina.''
    4. Section 635.27(b). In Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, 
NMFS stated that it would review the allocation of exempted fishing 
permits for research on dusky sharks on a case by case basis. The 
regulations did not match this intent. NMFS is proposing new language 
to match this intent.
    5. Section 635.30(c). For numerous years, NMFS has required that 
sharks be maintained intact (i.e., not filleted or otherwise processed) 
while onboard a vessel. Additional language is needed to clarify that 
sharks that are processed as bait may not be possessed aboard a vessel 
issued a Federal commercial shark permit even if the shark was landed 
before being processed. Additionally, clarification is needed on what 
the word ``intact'' means in regarding to possession of sharks at sea. 
As such, NMFS is proposing removing the word ``intact'' and describing 
it instead.
    6. Section 635.32(e). NMFS is updating a reference from the 
previous Billfish and Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMPs to the current 
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP.
    7. Section 635.69(a)(3). Additional language is needed to clarify 
the regulations regarding Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirements 
for holders of a shark Limited Access Permit (LAP). As such, NMFS is 
proposing to specify the right whale calving season as from November 
15--April 15.
    8. Table 1 of Appendix A. In addition to adding smooth dogfish to 
this list of managed species, NMFS is also updating the species names 
to match the most recent scientific naming determinations.

Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on any of the alternatives or analyses 
described in this proposed rule and in the draft Amendment 3. NMFS is 
also requesting comments on specific items related to those 
alternatives to clarify certain sections of the regulatory text or in 
analyzing potential impacts of the alternatives. Specifically, NMFS 
requests comments on:
    1. Landings information used to calculate the commercial quota for 
the smooth dogfish fishery. NMFS is proposing to establish the quota at 
one standard deviation above the maximum landings. Will this be high 
enough to encompass all current landings?
    2. Landings information used to calculate the smooth dogfish quota 
for EFPs, SRPs, and display permits. NMFS is proposing to establish the 
quota for EFPs, SRPs, and display permits for smooth dogfish at 6 mt ww 
(4.3 mt dw). Will this be high enough to encompass all current 
scientific and display landings? Is there specific research that NMFS 
should review when establishing the EFP, SRP, and display permit quota?
    3. The data used to identify and describe essential fish habitat 
for smooth dogfish. By adding smooth dogfish under NMFS management, 
NMFS is required to identify and describe essential fish habitat. The 
data and resulting identification and description are described in 
Chapter 11 of the DEIS. Are there additional data available that NMFS 
should consider?
    4. The number of vessels participating in the smooth dogfish 
fishery. In reviewing the available data, NMFS estimates that 
approximately 223 vessels have reported landing smooth dogfish in 
recent years. Are there additional vessels that would not be included 
in the data NMFS used?
    5. The boundary for the use of gillnets. NMFS is proposing that 
fishing for or possessing sharks when gillnet gear is on board be 
prohibited from South Carolina south including the Gulf of Mexico and 
Caribbean Sea. NMFS believes that north of this border represents an 
area where most blacknose sharks are no longer caught in gillnet gear 
and most smooth dogfish begin to be caught in gillnet gear. 
Additionally, the ALWTRP already prohibits or greatly restricts fishing 
with gillnet for sharks with webbing of 5 inches or greater in the 
Southeast U.S.

[[Page 36907]]

Restricted Area waters from Florida up to the South Carolina-North 
Carolina border, from November 15 through April 15. Therefore, we 
propose to establish the closure's northern boundary at the South 
Carolina-North Carolina border. Is the boundary appropriate? Does the 
proposal match blacknose and smooth dogfish catches?
    6. The VMS requirement for shark gillnet vessels. In Amendment 1 to 
the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP, NMFS implemented a 
requirement that stated that any gillnet vessel with a shark limited 
access permit, regardless of its location, needed to have a VMS unit 
installed and operating during right whale calving season. This 
requirement was put in place to protect right whales, specifically 
right whales calving off the east coast of Florida between November and 
March of each year. By maintaining this requirement, fishermen who keep 
their shark permits and use gillnet gear to fish for other species 
would still be required to maintain an operating VMS unit on their 
vessel. This requirement could still provide NMFS with information to 
help protect right whales and may provide additional information that 
may be used to end overfishing of blacknose sharks. However, if NMFS 
maintains this requirement, it might also require smooth dogfish 
fishermen who do not have VMS currently to obtain and operate a working 
VMS unit. Are there other reasons why the VMS requirement should remain 
in place? Are there reasons why the VMS requirement should be removed? 
Should smooth dogfish fishermen be required to comply with this 
requirement?
    7. The requirement to tend gillnet gear for smooth dogfish 
fishermen. The current regulations require that gillnet gear, including 
sink net gear, remain attached to the vessel. The regulations also 
state that net checks be conducted at least once every two hours in 
order to release protected species and/or prohibited sharks. At this 
time, NMFS is proposing that this requirement apply to smooth dogfish 
fishermen as well. NMFS has heard, however, that most smooth dogfish 
fishermen leave their gear untended. What would be the consequences of 
requiring smooth dogfish gillnet gear be tended?
    8. Size and retention limits for recreational smooth dogfish 
fishermen. Under the proposed regulations, recreational fishermen 
fishing for and landing smooth dogfish would not be restricted by a 
size or retention limit. This is different than what is required for 
most sharks (one shark per vessel per trip with a minimum size of 54 
inches FL) and is different than what is required for Atlantic 
sharpnose and bonnethead (one shark per person per trip with no minimum 
size). If NMFS were to establish a size and/or retention limit for 
smooth dogfish, what would an appropriate size and/or retention limit 
be?
    9. Allowing smooth dogfish to be retained in trawl gear. Under the 
proposed regulations, fishermen that possess a Federal Atlantic 
commercial shark permit would not be allowed to retain any smooth 
dogfish caught in trawl gear as trawl gear is not an authorized gear 
type for any Atlantic shark. However, NMFS is aware that some smooth 
dogfish landings in trawl gear have been reported in the Northeast 
region. In addition, NMFS has authorized an allowance for swordfish to 
be retained in squid trawls under Sec.  635.24(b)(2). Should NMFS 
create an allowance for smooth dogfish to be retained when caught with 
trawl gear? If so, what should that allowance be and how should it 
work?
    Comments may be submitted via writing, e-mail, fax, or phone (see 
ADDRESSES). Comments may also be submitted at a public hearing (see 
Public Hearings and Special Accommodations below). All comments must be 
submitted no later than 5 p.m. on September 22, 2009.

Public Hearings and Special Accommodations

    As listed in the table below, NMFS will hold nine public hearings 
to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the 
public regarding this proposed rule and the draft Amendment 3. These 
hearings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to LeAnn Southward Hogan at (301) 713-2347 at least 
7 days prior to the hearing date. NMFS has requested time to present 
this proposed rule and the draft Amendment 3 to the five Atlantic 
Regional 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                      Time         Hearing location                Hearing address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/11/09.......................  5-8 p.m..........  Thomas B. Norton   221 West 19th Avenue,
                                                    Library.          Gulf Shore, AL 36542.
8/17/09.......................  5-8 p.m..........  Manteo Town Hall.  407 Budleigh Road,
                                                                      Manteo, NC 27954.
8/20/09.......................  5-8 p.m..........  Lower Cape         2600 Bayshore Road,
                                                    Library.          Villas, NJ 08251.
8/31/09.......................  3-6 p.m..........  Gulf Beaches       200 Municipal Drive,
                                                    Public Library.   Madeira Beach, FL 33708.
9/1/09........................  5-8 p.m..........  Fort Pierce        101 Melody Lane,
                                                    Library.          Fort Pierce, FL 34950.
9/9/09........................  2:30-5 p.m.......  HMS Advisory       Crowne Plaza,
                                                    Panel Meeting.    8777 Georgia Avenue,
                                                                      Silver Spring, MD 20910.
9/16/09.......................  6-9 p.m..........  Charleston Main    68 Callhoun Street,
                                                    Library.          Charleston, SC 29401.
9/22/09.......................  6-9 p.m..........  Belle Chasse       8398 Highway 23,
                                                    Auditorium.       Belle Chasse, LA 70037.
9/22/09.......................  5-8 p.m..........  Portsmouth Public  175 Parrott Avenue,
                                                    Library.          Portsmouth, NH 03801.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 36908]]

which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount 
of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). 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 will be asked to leave the hearing.

Classification

    This proposed rule is published under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. At this time, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the proposed rule and related draft 
Amendment 3 to the Consolidated HMS FMP are consistent with the 
national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the 
Act, and other applicable law.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule has been determined to be not significant under EO 12866.

Executive Order 13132

    This rule does not have federalism implications sufficient to 
warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under EO 13132.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would require fishermen fishing for smooth 
dogfish to obtain a smooth dogfish permit. If finalized, this 
requirement would be considered a collection-of-information requirement 
and would be subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA). Because NMFS is unsure of the number of fishermen 
to which this requirement would apply and the extent of duplication, if 
any, in such a requirement, NMFS has not yet submitted this collection-
of-information to OMB for approval. During the public comment period, 
NMFS hopes to hear from fishermen regarding this proposed requirement. 
If NMFS finalizes this permitting requirement, NMFS would submit an 
application for the collection-of-information requirement to OMB for 
approval and would delay implementation of that portion of the rule 
pending approval.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to Karyl 
Brewster-Geisz at the ADDRESSES above.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the 
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 
entities. 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 IRFA follows. The full IRFA is contained in Amendment 3. 
Copies of Amendment 3 are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the 
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 
other applicable law, to rebuild blacknose sharks, end overfishing of 
blacknose and shortfin mako sharks, and add smooth dogfish under NMFS 
management.
    In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the objectives of this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) Implement a 
rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks to ensure that fishing mortality 
levels for blacknose sharks are maintained at or below levels that 
would result in a 70 percent probability of rebuilding in the time 
frame recommended by the assessment; (2) end overfishing for blacknose 
and shortfin mako sharks; (3) provide an opportunity for the 
sustainable harvest of finetooth, bonnethead, and Atlantic sharpnose 
sharks and other sharks, as appropriate; (4) prevent overfishing of 
Atlantic sharks; (5) consider smooth dogfish management measures for 
smooth dogfish sharks in Federal waters, as appropriate; and (6) 
develop an appropriate mechanism for specifying ACLs to prevent and end 
overfishing within the constraints of existing data and annually set 
ACLs and apply AMs to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded.
    Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the rule would apply. NMFS considers 
all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they either had 
average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, 
average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 
100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees 
for seafood processors. These are the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) size standards for defining a small versus large business entity 
in this industry.
    The proposed rule would apply to the 502 commercial shark permit 
holders in the Atlantic shark fishery based on an analysis of permit 
holders on March 18, 2009. Of these permit holders, 223 have directed 
shark permits and 279 hold incidental shark permits. Not all permit 
holders are active in the fishery in any given year. NMFS estimates 
that between 2004 and 2007, approximately 85 vessels with directed 
shark permits and 31 vessels with incidental shark permits landed SCS. 
The recreational measures proposed would also impact HMS Angling 
category and HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders. In general, 
the HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders can be regarded as 
small businesses, while HMS Angling category permits are typically 
obtained by individuals who are not considered small entities for 
purposes of the RFA. In 2008, 4,837 vessels obtained HMS Charter/
Headboat category permits.
    Finally, the preferred alternatives to add smooth dogfish under 
NMFS management and develop management measures, such as a Federal 
permit requirement, would impact an additional group of small entities. 
The number of entities impacted by this preferred alternative cannot be 
precisely measured at this time, since there is currently no Federal 
permit requirement for smooth dogfish fishing. Utilizing VTR and 
Coastal Logbook data, an estimate of the number of participants in the 
commercial smooth dogfish fishery can be calculated. Within the VTR 
data, a primarily Northeast U.S. reporting system, an average of 213 
vessels reported smooth dogfish landings per year between 2004 and 
2007. Within the Coastal Logbooks data, a primarily Southeast U.S. 
reporting system, an average of 10 vessels reported smooth dogfish 
landings per year between 2004 and 2007. From these data, an estimated 
223 commercial vessels would require a smooth dogfish permit.

[[Page 36909]]

    To estimate the number of recreational participants in the smooth 
dogfish fishery, NMFS examined MRFSS data. Based on MRFSS data from 
2004 to 2007, an average of 58,161 smooth dogfish were retained per 
year by private anglers and CHBs in the recreational fishery. This 
number is the upper limit of participants in the Federal recreational 
fishery of the species, and is likely much lower since multiple 
individual fish are expected to have been caught by one fisherman. 
Furthermore, based on the life history of the species and the fact the 
most recreational fisherman are shore-based, the vast majority of 
smooth dogfish caught recreationally are in coastal, State waters and 
would not require a Federal HMS angling permit.
    Under section 603(b)(4), Agencies are required to describe any new 
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The 
proposed commercial and recreational measures for SCS and pelagic 
sharks would not introduce any new reporting and record-keeping 
requirements. However, alternative F2 would implement Federal 
management of smooth dogfish and establish a permit for commercial and 
recreational retention of smooth dogfish in Federal waters.
    The proposed Federal permit requirement for smooth dogfish would 
allow NMFS to collect data regarding participants in the fishery and 
landings through Federal shark dealer reports. The Federal dogfish 
permit requirement would require a similar permit application to the 
other current HMS permits. The information collected on the application 
would include vessel information and owner identification and contact 
information. A modest fee to process the application and annual renewal 
would also likely be required. The cost would likely be similar to the 
current fee associated with the Atlantic Tunas General Category and 
Atlantic HMS Angling permits, which both cost $16 in 2009 to obtain. 
Under section 603(b)(5) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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, 
but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas 
Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. NMFS does not believe that the new regulations proposed 
to be implemented would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 
relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.
    Under section 603(c), agencies are required 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 and in Amendment 3. Additionally, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c) (1)-(4)) lists four 
general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an 
agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories 
of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 
requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of 
performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from 
coverage of the rule for small entities.
    In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent 
with Magunson-Stevens Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS 
cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only 
for small entities because all the entities affected are considered 
small entities. Thus, 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 
aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, 
complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no 
alternatives considered under the third category. As described below, 
NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed 
rulemaking and provides rationale for identifying the preferred 
alternative to achieve the desired objective.
    The alternatives considered and analyzed have been grouped into 
three major categories. These categories include commercial measures, 
recreational measures, and smooth dogfish. Under commercial measures, 
alternatives for SCS commercial quotas, gear restrictions, and pelagic 
shark effort controls were considered and analyzed. The SCS commercial 
quota alternatives include: (A1) Maintain the existing SCS quota; (A2) 
establish a new SCS quota of 392.5 mt dw and a blacknose commercial 
quota of 13.5 mt dw; (A3) establish a new SCS quota of 42.7 mt dw and a 
blacknose commercial quota of 16.6 mt dw; allow all current authorized 
gears for sharks; (A4) establish a new SCS quota of 56.9 mt dw and a 
blacknose commercial quota of 14.9 mt dw; remove shark gillnet gear as 
an authorized gear for sharks; and (A5) close the SCS fishery. The 
commercial gear restrictions alternatives include: (B1) Maintain 
current authorized gears for commercial shark fishing; (B2) close shark 
gillnet fishery; remove gillnet gear as an authorized gear type for 
commercial shark fishing; and (B3) close the gillnet fishery to 
commercial shark fishing from South Carolina south, including the Gulf 
of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. The pelagic shark effort controls 
alternatives include: (C1) Keep shortfin mako sharks in the pelagic 
shark species complex and do not change the quota; (C2) remove shortfin 
mako sharks from pelagic shark species quota and establish a shortfin 
mako quota; (C3) remove shortfin mako sharks from pelagic shark species 
complex and place this species on the prohibited shark species list; 
(C4a) establish a minimum size limit for shortfin mako sharks that is 
based on the size at which 50 percent of female shortfin mako sharks 
reach the sexual maturity or 32 inches interdorsal length (IDL); (C4b) 
establish a minimum size limit for shortfin makos that is based on the 
size at which 50 percent of male shortfin mako sharks reach the sexual 
maturity or 22 inches IDL; (C5) take action at the international level 
to end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks; and (C6) promote the 
release of shortfin mako sharks brought to fishing vessels alive.
    Under recreational measures, NMFS considered alternatives for both 
SCS and pelagic sharks. The recreational measures considered for SCS 
include: (D1) Maintain the current recreational retention and size 
limit for SCS; (D2) modify the minimum recreational size for blacknose 
sharks based on their biology, (D3) increase the retention limit for 
Atlantic sharpnose sharks based on current catches; and (D4) prohibit 
retention of blacknose sharks in recreational fisheries. The 
recreational measures considered for pelagic sharks include: (E1) 
Maintain the current recreational measures for shortfin mako sharks; 
(E2a) establish a minimum size limit for shortfin makos that is based 
on the size at which 50 percent of female shortfin mako sharks reach 
sexual maturity or 108 in FL; (E2b) establish a minimum size limit for 
shortfin makos that is based on the size at which 50 percent of male 
shortfin mako sharks reach sexual maturity or 73 inches FL; (E3) take 
action at the international level to end overfishing of shortfin mako

[[Page 36910]]

sharks; (E4) promote the release of shortfin mako sharks brought to 
fishing vessels alive; and (E5) prohibit retention of shortfin mako 
sharks in recreational fisheries (catch and release only).
    Finally, NMFS also considered alternatives for managing smooth 
dogfish. These alternatives include: (F1) Do not add smooth dogfish 
under NMFS management, (F2) add smooth dogfish under NMFS management 
and establish a Federal permit requirement, and (F3) add smooth dogfish 
under NMFS management and mirror management measures implemented in the 
ASMFC Interstate Shark FMP. NMFS considered several alternatives for 
adding smooth dogfish under NMFS management. These alternatives 
include: (F2 a1) Establish a smooth dogfish quota that is equal to the 
average annual landings from 1998-2007 (950,859 lb dw); (F2 a2) 
establish a smooth dogfish quota equal to the maximum annual landing 
between 1998-2007 (1,270,137 lb dw); (F2 a3) establish a smooth dogfish 
quota equal to the maximum annual landing between 1998-2007 plus one 
standard deviation (1,423,727 lb dw); (F2 b1) establish a separate 
smooth dogfish set-aside quota for the exempted fishing program of 6 mt 
ww; and (F2 b2) establish a smooth dogfish set-aside quota for the 
exempted fishing program and add it to the current 60 mt ww set aside 
quota for the exempted fishing program.
    The potential impacts these alternatives may have on small entities 
have been analyzed and are discussed in the following sections. The 
preferred alternatives include: A4, B3, C5, C6, D4, E3, E4, F2, and 
preferred sub-alternatives F2 a3 and F2 b1. The potential impacts these 
alternatives may have on small entities have been analyzed and are 
discussed above and in Amendment 3. A summary of the analyses follows. 
The economic impacts that would occur under these preferred 
alternatives were compared with the other alternatives to determine if 
economic impacts to small entities could be minimized while still 
accomplishing the stated objectives of this rule.

A. Commercial Measures

1. SCS Commercial Quota
    Under the No Action alternative, A1, there would be no additional 
economic impacts to directed and incidental shark permit holders as the 
average annual gross revenues from SCS landings, including blacknose 
shark landings, would be the same as the status quo. The average annual 
gross revenues from 2004 through 2007 from all SCS meat and fins was 
$833,634.
    Based on data from 2004 to 2007 for directed and incidental shark 
permit holders that landed non-blacknose SCS, the average directed 
shark permit holder earned $9,427 in average annual gross revenues, and 
the average incidental permit holder earned $707 in average annual 
gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings. For those shark permit 
holders that actually landed blacknose shark during that same time 
period, the average directed shark permit holder earned $3,640 in 
average annual gross revenues, and the average incidental shark permit 
holder earned $1,722 in average annual gross revenues from blacknose 
shark landings. These revenues are not expected to be impacted by 
alternative A1. However, since alternative A1 would not reduce 
blacknose shark mortality to the level needed to rebuild blacknose 
sharks (or 44,853.8 lb dw), NMFS does not prefer this alternative at 
this time.
    Under alternative A2, NMFS would create a blacknose shark-specific 
quota and a separate ``non-blacknose SCS'' quota, which would apply to 
finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks. NMFS anticipates 
that non-blacknose SCS landings should not decrease as the non-
blacknose SCS quota would only be reduced by the average blacknose 
shark landings. Therefore, the 68 directed and 29 incidental shark 
permit holders that had non-blacknose SCS landings would not be 
affected by the new non-blacknose SCS quota. However, the blacknose 
shark quota would be a 78-percent reduction based on average landings 
from 2004-2007.
    Average annual gross revenues for the blacknose shark landings for 
the entire fishery would decrease from $172,197 under the No Action 
alternative down to $37,500 under alternative A2, which is a 78-percent 
reduction in average annual gross revenues for blacknose sharks. Thus, 
the 44 directed and 7 incidental shark permit holders that had 
blacknose shark landings would be affected by the new blacknose shark 
quota. As directed permit holders landed the majority of blacknose 
shark under the No Action alternative, it is anticipated that directed 
permit holders would experience the largest impacts under alterative 
A2. The decrease in average annual gross revenues for directed and 
incidental permit holders would depend on the specific trip limit 
associated with the blacknose quota established under A2. However, 
because discards would continue as fishermen directed on non-blacknose 
SCS, regardless of the retention limits, overall mortality for 
blacknose sharks would still be above the commercial allowance of 
44,853.8 lb dw/year (7,094 blacknose sharks/year), even if the 
retention of blacknose sharks was prohibited. Therefore, NMFS does not 
prefer this alternative at this time.
    Under alternative A3, NMFS would create a blacknose shark-specific 
quota and a separate ``non-blacknose SCS'' quota equal to 42.7 mt dw 
(94,115 lb dw), which would apply to finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, and 
bonnethead sharks. NMFS determined that by reducing the overall SCS 
fishery, NMFS would reduce the level of blacknose shark discards such 
that the total blacknose shark mortality would stay below the 
commercial allowance. NMFS would establish a blacknose-specific quota 
of 16.6 mt dw (36,526 lb dw), which is the amount of blacknose sharks 
that would be harvested while the non-blacknose SCS quota is harvested; 
however, incidental shark permit holders would not be allowed to retain 
any blacknose sharks under alternative A3.
    While trip limits would not change for non-blacknose SCS for 
directed and incidental shark permit holders (i.e., no trip limit for 
directed fishermen and a 16 non-blacknose SCS/pelagic sharks combined 
trip limit for incidental fishermen), given the reduction in the non-
blacknose SCS quota, NMFS anticipates that the 68 directed and 29 
incidental shark permit holders that had non-blacknose SCS landings 
would be affected by the new non-blacknose SCS quota. Average annual 
gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings for the entire fishery 
are anticipated to be $119,526. This is an 82-percent reduction in 
average annual gross revenues compared to average annual gross revenues 
expected under the No Action alternative, A1. Since directed shark 
permit holders land approximately 97 percent of the non-blacknose SCS 
landings as explained in alternative A1, NMFS anticipates that directed 
shark permit holders would lose more in average annual gross revenues 
from non-blacknose SCS landings compared to incidental shark permit 
holders under alternative A3. Average annual gross revenues for 
directed shark permit holders of non-blacknose SCS under alternative A3 
would be $115,821, which is a loss of $525,185 in average annual gross 
revenues or an 82-percent reduction in average annual gross revenues 
from the average annual gross revenues expected under the No Action 
alternative, A1. Spread amongst the directed shark permit holders that 
land non-blacknose SCS, this is an anticipated loss of $7,723

[[Page 36911]]

in average annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings per 
permit holder. Incidental shark permit holders land approximately 3 
percent of the non-blacknose SCS. Average annual gross revenues for 
incidental shark permit holders of non-blacknose SCS under alternative 
A3 would be $3,705, which is a loss of $16,802 in average annual gross 
revenues or also an 82-percent reduction in average annual gross 
revenues from the average annual gross revenues expected under the No 
Action alternative, A1. Spread amongst the incidental shark permit 
holders that land non-blacknose SCS, this is an anticipated loss of 
$579 in average annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings 
per permit holder.
    The blacknose shark quota would be a 73-percent reduction based on 
average landings from 2004-2007. In addition, in order to keep the 
total mortality of blacknose sharks below the commercial allowance for 
the HMS Atlantic shark fishery, incidental shark permit holders would 
not be allowed to retain blacknose sharks under alternative A3. Thus, 
the 44 directed and 7 incidental shark permit holders that had 
blacknose shark landings would be affected by the new blacknose shark 
quota. Since incidental shark permit holders would not be able to 
retain blacknose sharks, the total blacknose shark quota would be 
available only to directed shark permit holders. Average annual gross 
revenues for the blacknose shark landings for the directed fishery 
would decrease from $172,197 under the No Action alternative down to 
$46,023 under alternative A3, which is a loss of $126,174 or a 73-
percent reduction in average annual gross revenues for blacknose sharks 
for directed shark permit holders.
    Spread amongst the directed shark permit holders that land 
blacknose sharks, there would be an anticipated loss of $2,868 in 
average annual gross revenues from blacknose landings per permit 
holder. However, since incidental shark permit holders would not be 
able to retain blacknose sharks, they would lose an estimated $12,054 
in average annual gross revenues from blacknose shark landings. Spread 
amongst the incidental shark permit holders that land blacknose sharks, 
there would be an anticipated loss of $1,722 in average annual gross 
revenues from blacknose landings per permit holder.
    Given the large reduction in the non-blacknose SCS quota under 
alternative A3, which would affect more directed and incidental permit 
holders compared to the smaller reduction in the non-blacknose SCS 
quota under alternative A4, NMFS does not prefer alternative A3 at this 
time.
    Under alternative A4, the preferred alternative, NMFS would create 
a blacknose shark-specific quota and a separate ``non-blacknose SCS'' 
quota equal to 56.9 mt dw (125,487 lb dw), which would apply to 
finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks. NMFS determined 
that by reducing the overall SCS fishery, NMFS could reduce the level 
of blacknose shark discards such that the total blacknose shark 
mortality would stay below the commercial allowance. NMFS would 
establish a blacknose-specific quota of 14.9 mt dw (32,753 lb dw), 
which is the amount of blacknose sharks that would be landed while the 
non-blacknose SCS quota is taken; however, incidental shark permit 
holders would not be allowed to retain any blacknose sharks under 
alternative A4. In addition, this alternative assumes that gillnet gear 
would not be used to harvest sharks as explained under alternatives B2 
and B3.
    While trip limits would not change for non-blacknose SCS for 
directed and incidental shark permit holders (i.e., no trip limit for 
directed fishermen and a 16 non-blacknose SCS/pelagic sharks combined 
trip limit for incidental fishermen), given the reduction in the non-
blacknose SCS quota, NMFS anticipates that the 41 directed and 22 
incidental shark permit holders that did not use gillnet gear to land 
non-blacknose SCS would be affected by the new non-blacknose SCS quota. 
Average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings for the 
entire fishery are anticipated to be $159,368. This is a 76-percent 
reduction in average annual gross revenues compared to the average 
annual gross revenues expected under the No Action alternative, A1. 
Since directed shark permit holders land approximately 97 percent of 
the non-blacknose SCS landings as explained in alternative A1, NMFS 
anticipates that directed shark permit holders would lose more in 
average annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings compared 
to incidental shark permit holders under alternative A4. Average annual 
gross revenues for directed shark permit holders of non-blacknose SCS 
under alternative A4 would be $153,841, which is a loss of $487,165 in 
average annual gross revenues or a 76-percent reduction in average 
annual gross revenues from the average annual gross revenues expected 
under the No Action alternative, A1. Spread amongst the directed shark 
permit holders that did not use gillnet gear to land non-blacknose SCS, 
there could be an anticipated loss of $11,882 in average annual gross 
revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings per permit holder. Incidental 
shark permit holders land approximately 3 percent of the non-blacknose 
SCS landings as explained in alternative A1. Average annual gross 
revenues for incidental shark permit holders of non-blacknose SCS under 
alternative A4 would be $4,922, which is a loss of $15,585 in average 
annual gross revenues or a 76-percent reduction in average annual gross 
revenues from the average annual gross revenues expected under the No 
Action alternative, A1. Spread amongst the incidental shark permit 
holders that did not use gillnet gear to land non-blacknose SCS, there 
could be an anticipated loss of $708 in average annual gross revenues 
from non-blacknose SCS landings per permit holder.
    The blacknose shark quota would also be a 76-percent reduction 
based on average landings from 2004-2007. In addition, in order to keep 
the total mortality of blacknose sharks below the commercial allowance 
for the Atlantic shark fishery, incidental shark permit holders would 
not be allowed to retain blacknose sharks under alternative A4. Thus, 
the 15 directed and 5 incidental shark permit holders that did not use 
gillnet gear to land blacknose sharks would be affected by the new 
blacknose shark quota. Since incidental shark permit holders would not 
be able to retain blacknose sharks, the total blacknose shark quota 
would be available only to directed shark permit holders.
    Average annual gross revenues for the blacknose shark landings for 
the directed fishery would decrease from $172,197 under the No Action 
alternative down to $41,269 under alternative A4, which is a loss of 
$130,928 or a 76-percent reduction in average annual gross revenues 
from blacknose sharks for directed shark permit holders. Spread amongst 
the directed shark permit holders that did not use gillnet gear to land 
blacknose sharks, there could be an anticipated loss of $8,729 in 
average annual gross revenues from blacknose landings per permit 
holder. However, since incidental shark permit holders would not be 
able to retain blacknose sharks, they would lose an estimated $12,054 
in average annual gross revenues from blacknose shark landings. Spread 
amongst the incidental shark permit holders that did not use gillnet 
gear to land blacknose sharks, there could be an anticipated loss of 
$2,411 in average annual gross revenues from blacknose landings per 
permit holder.

[[Page 36912]]

    NMFS prefers alternative A4 at this time because by reducing effort 
in the overall SCS fishery, NMFS could reduce the level of blacknose 
shark discards such that the total blacknose shark mortality would stay 
below the commercial allowance needed to rebuild the stock. While 
gillnet fishermen would be affected the most by alternative A4 in 
combination with alternative B2 or B3, with estimated gross revenue 
losses between $377,928 and $365,067 from lost non-blacknose SCS and 
blacknose landings, alternative A4 would allow for a higher non-
blacknose SCS quota (56.9 mt dw) compared to alternative A3 (42.7 mt 
dw). This higher quota would benefit the larger SCS fishery, while the 
prohibition of gillnet gear would affect a small number of directed 
shark permit holders that use gillnet gear. Therefore, NMFS prefers 
alternative A4 at this time.
    Alternative A5 would close the entire SCS commercial shark fishery, 
prohibiting the landing of any SCS, including blacknose sharks. Thus, 
this alternative would eliminate landings of all SCS, including 
finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and blacknose sharks. This 
would have negative economic impacts on the average 85 directed shark 
permit holders, and the average 31 incidental shark permit holders that 
had SCS landings during 2004-2007. This would result in a loss of 
average annual gross revenues of $661,513 for non-blacknose SCS and 
$172,197 from blacknose shark landings for a total loss of $833,710 in 
average annual gross revenues from SCS landings. Directed shark permit 
holders would lose $641,006 in average annual gross revenues from non-
blacknose SCS landings and $160,143 in average annual gross revenues 
from blacknose shark landings for a total of $801,149 in average annual 
gross revenues. Spread among the 85 directed shark permit holders that 
land SCS, this could result in a loss in average annual gross revenues 
of $9,426 per permit holder.
    Incidental shark permit holders would lose $20,507 in average 
annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings and $12,054 in 
average annual gross revenues from blacknose shark landings for a total 
of $32,561 in average annual gross revenues under alternative A5. 
Spread among the 31 incidental shark permit holders that land SCS, this 
could result in a loss in average annual gross revenues of $1,050 per 
permit holder.
    In addition, as gillnet gear is the primary gear used to target 
SCS, it is assumed that directed shark gillnet fishing would end, 
except for fishermen that use gillnet gear to strikenet for blacktip 
sharks. Approximately 11 directed shark permit holders use gillnet gear 
to land LCS. This would result in a decrease in LCS landings of 102,171 
lb dw and a decrease in average annual gross revenues of $107,280. 
Spread among the 11 directed shark permit holders that land LCS with 
gillnet gear, this alternative would result in a loss in average annual 
gross revenues of $9,753 per permit holder.
    While this alternative could reduce blacknose mortality below the 
commercial allowance of 44,853.8 lb dw, it would also completely 
eliminate the fishery for all SCS. Of the alternatives analyzed, 
alternative A5 would result in the most significant economic impacts to 
small entities. In addition, this alternative would severely curtail 
data collection on all SCS that could be used for future stock 
assessments. Thus, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
2. Commercial Gear Restrictions
    Under alternative B1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain the current gear restrictions for rod and reel, gillnet, and 
BLL gear. Therefore, the economic impacts of alternative B1 would be 
the same as the status quo, and no negative economic impacts would be 
anticipated under alternative B1. On average from 2004-2007, the 
directed and incidental shark permit holders earned average annual 
gross revenues from SCS landings of $833,634, while the directed and 
incidental permit holders that landed LCS earned larger gross revenues 
of $3,328,663. The smooth dogfish fishery is smaller than the other 
fisheries and only has average annual gross revenues of $371,786 for 
State and Federally permitted fishermen reporting to the ACCSP. Based 
on this alternative, the average annual gross revenues of these 
fisheries would remain the same as the status quo. The average number 
of directed and incidental shark permit holders that reported SCS 
landings in the Coastal Fisheries logbook from 2004-2007 were 116 (85 
directed and 31 incidental shark permit holders), and the LCS fishery 
had an annual average of 162 permit holders (129 directed and 33 
incidental shark permit holders) reporting LCS landings in the Coastal 
Fisheries logbook from 2004-2007. The number of permit holders would 
not be impacted by the No Action alternative.
    Under alternative B2, NMFS would remove gillnet gear as an 
authorized gear type for commercial shark fishing. This alternative 
would have significant negative economic impacts by potentially 
affecting 30 directed and 7 incidental shark permit holders. On 
average, directed shark permit holders landed 289,546 lb dw of SCS with 
gillnet gear. This is equivalent to $365,955 in lost average annual 
gross revenues from SCS landings for directed shark permit holders. 
Based on average ex-vessel prices per pound from 2004-2007, directed 
shark permit holders made $807,792 in average annual gross revenues 
from SCS landings. On average, incidental shark permit holders landed 
9,465 lb dw of SCS with gillnet gear. This is equivalent to $11,973 in 
lost average annual gross revenues from SCS landings for incidental 
shark fishermen due to the prohibition of gillnet gear. Based on 
average ex-vessel prices per pound from 2004-2007, incidental shark 
permit holders made $25,843 from SCS landings under the status quo. 
This represents a 45 percent reduction in SCS revenues for directed 
shark permit holders and a 46 percent reduction in SCS revenues for 
incidental shark permit holders compared to the No Action alternative, 
alternative B1.
    This alternative would have a minimal negative economic impact on 
the LCS fishery. Only 11 directed and 5 incidental shark permit holders 
out of the 162 total shark permit holders would be affected. On 
average, directed shark permit holders landed 102,171 lb dw of LCS with 
gillnet gear. This is equivalent to $107,280 in lost average annual 
gross revenues from LCS landings (3 percent reduction). On average, 
incidental shark permit holders landed 1,961 lb dw of LCS with gillnet 
gear. This is equivalent to $2,059 in lost average annual gross 
revenues from LCS landings for incidental shark permit holders due to 
the prohibition of gillnet gear. In total ($109,339), this is 
approximately 3 percent of the gross revenues for the entire LCS 
fishery under the status quo (i.e., $3,328,663).
    Gillnets are also the primary gear type used to catch smooth 
dogfish. Within the VTR data, a primarily Northeast U.S. reporting 
system, an average of 213 vessels reported smooth dogfish landings per 
year between 2004 and 2007. Within the Coastal Fisheries Logbooks data, 
a primarily Southeast U.S. reporting system, an average of 10 vessels 
reported smooth dogfish landings per year between 2004 and 2007. From 
these data, an estimate of 223 vessels would require a smooth dogfish 
permit; however, as fishermen are currently not required to have a 
permit to retain smooth dogfish, this could be an underestimate of the 
number of fishermen that would require a Federal commercial permit for 
smooth dogfish in the future. The average total

[[Page 36913]]

annual landings from 1998-2007 was 950,859 lb dw (by State and 
Federally permitted fishermen reporting to the ACCSP, however, since 
fishermen do not have to currently report smooth dogfish landings, this 
could be an underestimate of total landings, and thus, an underestimate 
of average annual gross revenues for this fishery). Based on average 
ex-vessel prices per pound from 2004-2007, average annual gross 
revenues for the entire smooth dogfish fishery totaled $371,786 from 
smooth dogfish landings. Based on the preferred alternative F2, which 
would require fishermen who fish for smooth dogfish in Federal waters 
to obtain a Federal smooth dogfish permit, then under alternative B2, 
those fishermen would not be able to use gillnet gear to land smooth 
dogfish. This would have a negative economic impact on fishermen who 
previously used gillnet gear in Federal waters to land smooth dogfish. 
However, as fishermen do not have to have a Federal permit currently to 
land smooth dogfish, NMFS is uncertain of the universe of fishermen who 
might be affected by alternatives B2 and F2 at this time. However, 
given the potential large negative economic impacts of this alternative 
to the SCS, LCS, and smooth dogfish fisheries, NMFS does not prefer 
this alternative at this time.
    Under alternative B3, the preferred alternative, NMFS would close 
the commercial gillnet fishery from South Carolina south, including the 
Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. This would have a negative 
economic impact on Federally permitted directed and incidental shark 
permit holders. In the SCS fishery, this alternative would affect an 
average of 27 directed and 5 incidental shark permit holders out of the 
average 116 total shark permit holders that landed SCS from 2004-2007. 
The SCS gillnet fishery from South Carolina south accounts for 44 
percent of the total directed shark permit holder landings, and 26 
percent of landings in the incidental fishery. On average, directed 
shark permit holders landed 283,462 lb dw ($358,261) of SCS with the 
gillnet gear from South Carolina south. Thus, directed shark permit 
holders would lose $358,261 in average annual gross revenues from SCS 
landings from the gillnet prohibition under alternative B3. Based on 
average ex-vessel prices from 2004-2007, directed shark permit holders 
made $807,792 in average annual gross revenues from SCS landings. On 
average, incidental shark permit holders landed 5,381 lb dw ($6,807) of 
SCS with gillnet gear from South Carolina south. Thus, incidental shark 
permit holders would lose $6,807 in average annual gross revenues from 
non-blacknose SCS landings under alternative B3. The directed and 
incidental shark permit holders would lose average annual gross 
revenues of $365,068 from their current gross revenues of $833,634.
    This alternative would have minor economic impacts on the LCS 
fishery. It would only affect 12 directed and incidental shark permit 
holders. The directed shark permit holders would lose $106,189 in 
average annual gross revenues from lost LCS landings in gillnet gear 
from South Carolina south under alternative B3. Incidental shark permit 
holders would lose $290 from lost LCS landings in gillnet gear from 
South Carolina south. In total ($106,479), this is only 3 percent of 
the average annual gross revenues (i.e., $3,328,663) from LCS landings 
compared to the LCS fishery under the status quo.
    Alternative B3, in combination with the preferred alternative F2, 
would not affect the social and economics impacts of the smooth dogfish 
fishery. Smooth dogfish are primarily caught from North Carolina north. 
The average total landings/year is 950,859 lb dw/year (by State and 
Federally permitted fishermen reporting to the ACCSP, however, since 
fishermen do not have to currently report smooth dogfish landings, this 
could be an underestimate of total landings, and thus, an underestimate 
of average annual gross revenues for this fishery), which translates 
into average annual gross revenues of $371,786 lb dw/year from smooth 
dogfish landings. Given smooth dogfish are not typically landed with 
gillnet gear from South Carolina south, NMFS anticipates that this 
alternative, in combination with the preferred alternative F2, would 
not cause any loss in average annual gross revenues from smooth dogfish 
landings. Since this alternative would assist NMFS in reaching 
commercial allowance for blacknose sharks for the commercial shark 
fishery, and has minimal economic impacts to LCS and smooth dogfish 
shark fishermen, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time.
3. Pelagic Shark Effort Controls
    The No Action alternative, C1, would not modify or alter commercial 
fishing practices for shortfin mako sharks or other shark species. 
There would be no additional economic impacts to directed and 
incidental fishermen as the average annual gross revenues from shortfin 
mako sharks or other shark species would be the same as the status quo. 
On average, 72.5 mt dw of shortfin mako sharks were commercially landed 
between 2004 and 2007, which is equivalent to $350,039 in annual 
revenues. On average between 2004 and 2007, approximately 90 vessels 
had shortfin mako shark landings. Directed shark permit holders made up 
39 of these vessels. However, since shortfin mako is typically 
incidentally caught, the average landings value per vessel was 
estimated by dividing annual revenues amongst all the vessels that have 
landed shortfin mako. Therefore, the vessels that landed shortfin mako 
generated an average of $3,889 in gross revenues per year from shortfin 
mako sharks.
    Alternative C2 would implement a species-specific quota for 
shortfin mako at the level of the average annual commercial landings 
for this species. This alternative is expected to have neutral or 
slightly negative economic impacts. On average, 72.5 mt dw (159,834 lb 
dw) of shortfin mako sharks were commercially landed between 2004 and 
2007, which is equivalent to $350,039 in average annual gross revenues. 
Spread amongst the vessels that landed shortfin mako sharks, the 
average vessel earned $3,889 in annual gross revenues from shortfin 
mako sharks. While fishermen would be able to maintain current fishing 
effort under this alternative, any increase in effort would be 
restricted by the species-specific quota of 72.5 mt dw. Under the No 
Action alternative, commercial fishermen currently have a 488 mt dw 
quota, which could potentially be filled entirely by shortfin mako 
landings. This could result in maximum annual gross revenues equal to 
$2,356,106. Thus, there is the potential loss of the option to fish up 
to the maximum level under this alternative. This difference is 
$2,006,067 in annual revenues from shortfin mako sharks. Spread amongst 
the 90 vessels that, on average, have landed shortfin mako sharks from 
2004 to 2007, that difference would be $22,289 annually per vessel. 
However, given shortfin mako sharks are incidentally caught in the PLL 
fishery, it is unlikely that the entire pelagic shark quota would be 
entirely filled with shortfin mako landings. NMFS does not prefer this 
alternative at this time because the United States contributes a small 
portion of shortfin mako mortality due the lack of a directed fishery 
compared to shortfin mako mortality resulting from the fishing of 
foreign vessels outside of the U.S. EEZ. In addition, this alternative 
does not minimize the potential economic impacts on small entities.
    Alternative C3 would remove shortfin mako sharks from the pelagic 
shark species complex and add them to the

[[Page 36914]]

prohibited species list. This alternative is not expected to have 
negative economic impacts for commercial fishermen because it is not a 
species that is targeted by commercial fishermen. Shortfin mako sharks 
are predominately caught incidentally in the PLL fishery and, on 
average, the commercial landings for shortfin mako sharks, from 2004 to 
2007 were 72.5 mt dw with an estimated gross ex-vessel value of 
$350,039. However, since shortfin makos would be placed on the 
prohibited species list under alternative C3, there could be an 
estimated reduction in average annual gross revenues of $350,039 to the 
commercial fishermen. Based on the average number of vessels that have 
landed shortfin mako from 2004 to 2007, the revenue reductions would be 
approximately $3,889 per vessel annually. In addition, this alternative 
could lead to increased operation time if commercial fishermen have to 
release and discard all shortfin makos that are caught on the PLL gear. 
In addition, if the commercial PLL fleet expands in the future, placing 
shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited species list could result in a 
loss of future revenues for the commercial PLL fishery. Thus, NMFS does 
not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative C4a would establish a minimum size limit for shortfin 
makos that is based on the size at which 50 percent of female shortfin 
mako sharks reach sexual maturity or 32 inches IDL. The summed dressed 
weight of all shortfin mako sharks kept under the 32 inches IDL size 
limit made up 1.4 percent of total dressed weight landings of shortfin 
mako sharks based on POP data. NMFS estimated this would reduce 
shortfin mako harvests by 2,061.1 lb dw. The economic impacts of this 
restriction would be an average annual gross revenues loss of $4,513 
for this fishery. Spread amongst the 90 vessels that have landed 
shortfin mako sharks from 2004 to 2007, the per vessel losses would be 
approximately $50 annually.
    Alternative C4b would establish a minimum size limit for shortfin 
makos that is based on the size at which 50 percent of male shortfin 
mako sharks reach sexual maturity or 22 inches IDL. The summed dressed 
weight of all kept shortfin mako sharks under the 22 inches IDL size 
limit made up 0.02 percent of dressed weight landings of shortfin mako 
based on POP data. NMFS estimated this would reduce shortfin mako 
harvests by 34.3 lb dw. The economic impacts of this restriction would 
be an average annual gross revenues loss of $75 for this fishery.
    Alternatives C4a and C4b would have minimal economic impacts 
because only a small percentage of commercial landings would be 
affected by the size restrictions. Of the two alternatives, the 
negative economic impact of C4a would be greater, as commercial 
landings by weight are 2,026.8 lb dw greater than in alternative C4b. 
Despite these minimum economic impacts, since the size limits would not 
reduce fishing mortality of shortfin mako sharks in the commercial 
sector, NMFS does not prefer these alternatives at this time.
    Under alternative C5, the preferred alternative, NMFS would take 
action at the international level to end overfishing of shortfin mako 
sharks. In the short term, this alternative would not result in any 
negative economic impacts on commercial fishermen as it would not 
restrict commercial harvest of shortfin mako sharks, nor alter the 
pelagic shark quota. Therefore, the social and economic impacts of 
alternative C5 would be the same as described in the No Action 
alternative C1. However, this alternative could have negative economic 
impacts in the long term if directed management measures were adopted 
at an appropriate international forum that would require the reduction 
of landings domestically for shortfin mako sharks. Recommended 
reductions in landings, if implemented by multiple nations, would 
ultimately end overfishing of shortfin mako. Therefore, NMFS prefers 
alternative C5 at this time.
    Alternative C6, the preferred alternative, would promote the 
release of shortfin mako sharks brought to fishing vessels alive. This 
alternative would likely not result in any negative economic impacts on 
commercial fishermen as it does not restrict commercial harvest of 
shortfin mako sharks that are alive at haulback, and quotas and 
retention limits would remain as described in the No Action alternative 
C1. However, as this alternative could result in the reduction of 
fishing mortality of shortfin mako sharks by encouraging fishermen to 
release shortfin mako sharks brought to the fishing vessel alive, NMFS 
prefers this alternative at this time.

B. Recreational Measures

1. Small Coastal Sharks
    Under alternative D1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain the current recreational management measures, including the 
current retention limits and size limits for SCS. Therefore, the 
economic impacts of alternative D1 would be the same as the status quo, 
and no negative economic impacts would be anticipated under alternative 
D1. However, as this alternative would not help rebuild blacknose 
sharks, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative D2 would modify the minimum recreational size for 
blacknose sharks based on the biology of blacknose sharks. This would 
lower the current size limit from 54 inches FL to 36 inches FL, the 
size at which 50 percent of the female blacknose sharks reach sexual 
maturity. This could increase the landings of recreationally harvested 
blacknose sharks and, therefore, have positive economic impacts for 
small business entities supporting recreational fishermen. The 
potential for increased landings associated with the lower size limit 
could marginally increase demand for charter/headboat services and for 
products and service provided by shoreside businesses that support 
recreational fishermen. Since this alternative could result in the 
increase of blacknose shark recreational landings, and NMFS needs to 
reduce the number of blacknose shark landings in order to rebuild the 
stock, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative D3 would increase the retention limit for Atlantic 
sharpnose sharks based on their current catches and stock status. Any 
increase in the retention limit for Atlantic sharpnose sharks would 
provide positive economic impacts for recreational fishermen, 
especially if this resulted in more charter trips for charter/
headboats. However, since the latest stock assessment suggests that 
increased fishing efforts could result in an overfished status and/or 
cause overfishing to occur in the future (NMFS, 2007), NMFS does not 
prefer this alternative at this time.
    Under alternative D4, the preferred alternative, NMFS would 
prohibit the retention of blacknose sharks in the recreational fishery. 
While recreational fishermen would likely still catch blacknose sharks 
when fishing for other fish, they would not be permitted to retain 
blacknose sharks and would have to release them. This could have 
negative economic impacts on recreational fishermen, including 
tournaments and charter/headboats if the prohibition of blacknose 
sharks resulted in fewer charters and reduced tournament participation. 
However, since blacknose sharks are not one of the primary species 
targeted by recreational anglers, in tournaments, or on charters, NMFS 
does not anticipate large negative economic impacts from this 
alternative on tournaments or charter/headboat businesses. Therefore,

[[Page 36915]]

NMFS prefers this alternative at this time since it meets the 
objectives of this rule of reducing overfishing of blacknose sharks 
while also minimizing economic impacts on small entities.
2. Pelagic Sharks
    Maintaining the current recreational measures for shortfin mako 
sharks under alternative E1 would likely not result in any adverse 
economic impacts on small entities since the No Action alternative 
would not modify or alter recreational fishing practices for shortfin 
mako sharks or other shark species. However, this alternative would not 
meet the objective of this rule in reducing overfishing of shortfin 
mako sharks, thus, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative E2a would set a minimum size limit for shortfin mako 
sharks of 108 inches FL in the recreational fishery. This would have 
the most severe economic impacts of all the alternatives considered, as 
almost all of the reported shortfin mako sharks landed (99.5 percent) 
were smaller than the proposed 108 inch FL size limit and would have to 
be released. This alternative would basically create a catch-and-
release fishery for shortfin mako sharks. The impacts of alternative 
E2b would be less severe than alternative E2a, as it would set a 
minimum size limit for shortfin mako sharks of 73 inches FL in the 
recreational fishery. This would result in a 60.3 percent overall 
reduction in recreational shortfin mako shark landings. Under this 
alternative, economic impacts would be greater on the non-tournament 
recreational mako shark fishery, as 81 percent of those landings would 
fall below the 73 inch FL size limit. The percentage of recreational 
landings during tournaments that would be released under alternative 
E2b would be less than the non-tournament recreational landings (51.7 
percent to 81 percent, respectively). According to LPS data, 41 percent 
of shortfin mako sharks caught are kept; therefore, size limits in 
alternatives E2 may have a substantial economic impact on the 
recreational fishery. Thus, NMFS does not prefer E2a or E2b at this 
time.
    Under alternative E3, NMFS would take action at the international 
level to end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. This alternative 
would not result in any changes in the current recreational regulations 
regarding bag or size limits for shortfin mako sharks. Therefore, this 
alternative would likely not result in any negative economic impacts 
for recreational fishermen and the small businesses that support those 
recreational fishing activities in the short term as compared to the No 
Action alternative, E1. In addition, this alternative could help end 
overfishing of shortfin mako sharks in the long term through an 
international plan to conserve shortfin mako sharks. Therefore, NMFS 
prefers this alternative at this time.
    Under alternative E4, NMFS would promote the live release of 
shortfin mako sharks in the recreational shark fishery, but this 
alternative would not result in any changes in the current recreational 
regulations regarding bag or size limits for shortfin mako sharks. 
Therefore, this alternative would likely not result in any economic 
impacts compared to the No Action alternative, alternative E1. However, 
it would encourage the live release of shortfin mako sharks, and could 
help reduce fishing pressure on this species. Therefore, NMFS prefers 
this alternative at this time.
    Under alternative E5, NMFS would remove shortfin mako sharks from 
the authorized species list and add them to the prohibited species 
list. Placing shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited species list would 
make the recreational fishery for shortfin mako sharks a catch-and-
release fishery. Although a small number of shortfin mako sharks were 
landed in the recreational fishery from 2004 to 2007, it is also an 
important fishing tournament species. Fishing tournaments are an 
important component of HMS recreational fisheries. In 2008, there were 
42 shark tournaments throughout the U.S. Atlantic Coast, including the 
Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Therefore, adding this species to 
the prohibited species list could lead to negative economic impacts for 
tournament operators since they may have to modify their tournament 
rules and could face reduced demand for participation, and thus reduce 
revenues from entry fees. A recreational catch-and-release fishery for 
shortfin mako may also reduce demand for CHB trips that target shortfin 
mako sharks. In addition, since the United States only contributes to a 
small portion of the overall mortality for shortfin mako sharks, 
prohibiting them in the recreational fishery would not end overfishing 
for this species. Given these reasons and the economic impacts of this 
alternative are estimated to be higher than that of the preferred 
alternatives, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.

C. Smooth Dogfish

    Under alternative F1, the no action alternative, NMFS estimates 
that there would not be any economic impacts to small entities beyond 
the status quo. This alternative would have the lowest costs 
alternative to small entities. However, applying the No Action 
alternative would not meet the objectives of this rule since it would 
preclude gathering fishery participant information. Therefore, NMFS 
does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Implementing Federal management of smooth dogfish through 
alternative F2 would focus on characterizing the fishery and stock 
status, but would not actively change catch levels or rates. Therefore, 
this alternative would likely have minor economic impacts on small 
entities. Business entities that fish commercially for smooth dogfish 
would have to purchase an open access smooth dogfish commercial fishing 
permit, and dealers would have to report smooth dogfish landings. The 
costs to small entities would include the costs of obtaining the 
permit, the time involved in completing the permit form, and the 
administrative costs associated with reporting landings. In addition, 
recreational anglers that would want to retain smooth dogfish in 
Federal waters would need to purchase an HMS Angling category permit. 
While this alternative results in more costs to small entities than 
alternative F1, it helps meet the objectives of this rule of gathering 
more information on participation in this fishery, and therefore is 
preferred at this time.
    Sub-alternatives F2 a1, which would establish a smooth dogfish 
quota that is equal to the average annual landings from 1998-2007, and 
F2 a2, which would establish a smooth dogfish quota equal to the 
maximum annual landing between 1998-2007, could potentially have 
negative social and economic impacts on fishermen if the associated 
quotas reflect a significantly underreported fishery. If the actual 
landings are higher than these two quotas, fishermen would be prevented 
from fishing at status quo levels, and thus experience negative 
economic impacts. Thus, NMFS does not prefer these two sub-alternatives 
at this time.
    Sub-alternative F2 a3, which would establish a smooth dogfish quota 
above the maximum annual landing between 1998-2007, is anticipated to 
have neutral economic impacts. Establishing a quota of maximum 
historical annual landings plus one standard deviation between the 
years 1998 and 2007 would allow a buffer for potential unreported 
landings during that time. This would allow the fishery to continue in 
the future without having to be shut down prematurely, which may not be 
warranted given smooth dogfish sharks

[[Page 36916]]

have not been assessed. Thus, NMFS prefers sub-alternative F2 a3 at 
this time.
    There are no negative economic impacts anticipated with sub-
alternative F2 b1. There is no charge associated with fishermen and 
researchers obtaining an EFP, SRP, display permit, or LOA for research 
or the collection for public display. In addition, NMFS would establish 
a smooth dogfish set aside that would accommodate current and future 
research activities. Thus, NMFS does not anticipate any negative social 
and economic impacts associated with sub-alternative F2 b1, and NMFS 
prefers sub-alternative F2 b1 at this time.
    As with sub-alternative F2 b1, there are no negative economic 
impacts anticipated with sub-alternative F2 b2. There is no charge 
associated with fishermen and researchers obtaining an EFP, SRP, 
display permit, or LOA for research or for the collection for public 
display. In addition, NMFS would establish a smooth dogfish set-aside 
that would accommodate current and future research activities. Thus, 
NMFS does not anticipate any negative social and economic impacts 
associated with sub-alternative Fb1.
    Alternative F3, which would implement management measures for 
smooth dogfish that complement the ASMFC plan, would likely have 
neutral to slightly positive economic impacts. Most of the ASMFC 
regulations would not change the smooth dogfish fishery, and would 
therefore, would have neutral impacts on fishermen. In addition, the 
ASMFC's consideration of removing the two net-hour check provision and 
allowing fishermen to process smooth dogfish while at sea would allow 
fishermen to conduct the fishery as they have in the past, and 
therefore, result in neutral or slightly positive economic impacts. 
However, since NMFS considers the requirements for gillnet checks and 
maintaining shark fins naturally attached through offloading necessary 
conservation tools for protected resources and to prevent shark 
finning, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 229

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

50 CFR Part 600

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: July 17, 2009.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR Chapter II (part 
229) and Chapter VI (parts 600 and 635) are proposed to be amended as 
follows:

CHAPTER II--NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 229--AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE 
MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972

    1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq; Sec.  229.32(f) also issued 
under 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.


Sec.  229.2  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  229.2, the definition of ``Spotter plane'' is removed.
    3. In Sec.  229.3, paragraphs (k) and (l) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  229.3  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (k) It is prohibited to fish with or possess gillnet gear in the 
areas and during the times specified in Sec.  229.32(f)(1) and (g)(1) 
unless the gillnet gear complies with the marking requirements, 
closures, modifications, and restrictions specified in Sec.  
229.32(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iii), (f)(2)(iv), and (g)(2), or 
for (g)(2) unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (l) It is prohibited to fish with or possess shark gillnet gear 
(i.e. gillnet gear for shark with webbing of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or 
greater stretched mesh) in the areas and during the times specified in 
Sec.  229.32(f)(1), (g)(1) and (h)(1) unless the gear complies with the 
restrictions specified in Sec.  229.32(f)(2)(v).
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  229.32:
    A. Paragraphs (a)(1) last sentence of the introductory text, 
(b)(2)(ii)(A)(6), (b)(2)(iii) heading, (f)(2)(ii)(A), (f)(2)(ii)(B), 
and (g)(3) are revised.
    B. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) is removed and reserved.
    C. Remove paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (vi) and redesignate 
paragraphs (f)(2)(iv) and (v) as paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (iv), 
respectively.
    D. Remove paragraphs (g)(2) and (4) and redesignate paragraph 
(g)(3) as paragraph (g)(2).
    E. Remove paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) heading and (h)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  229.32  Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.

    (a)(1) * * * The gear types affected by this plan include gillnets, 
(e.g., anchored, drift, gillnet, sink and stab net) as defined in Sec.  
229.2, and trap/pots.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (6) Gillnet gear in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S and Other 
Southeast Gillnet Waters must be marked with a yellow marking.
* * * * *
    (iii) Requirements for all specified areas--Surface buoy markings. 
* * *
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, 
fishing with or possessing gillnet in the Southeast U.S. Restricted 
Area N during the restricted period is prohibited.
    (B) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, 
fishing with gillnet in the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S during the 
restricted period is prohibited.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) Restrictions for Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery. No person 
or vessel may fish with or possess gillnet gear in the Other Southeast 
Gillnet Waters Area north of 29[deg]00' N. lat. from November 15 
through April 15 and south of 29[deg]00' N. lat. from December 1 
through March 31 unless that gear complies with the gear marking 
requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the universal 
anchored gillnet gear requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section, and the area-specific requirements for anchored gillnets 
specified in paragraphs (d)(7)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section for 
the Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters, or unless the gear is stowed as 
specified in Sec.  229.2. The Assistant Administrator may revise these 
requirements in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section.
* * * * *

[[Page 36917]]

CHAPTER VI--FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

    5. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    6. In Sec.  600.1204, paragraphs (g) through (l) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  600.1204  Shark finning; possession at sea and landing of shark 
fins.

* * * * *
    (g) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit and who lands shark in an 
Atlantic coastal port must have all fins weighed in conjunction with 
the weighing of the carcasses at the vessel's first point of landing. 
Such weights must be recorded on the ``weighout slips'' specified in 
Sec.  635.5(a)(2) of this chapter.
    (h) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit and who lands shark in or from 
the U.S. EEZ in an Atlantic coastal port must comply with regulations 
found at Sec.  635.30(c) of this chapter.
    (i) No person aboard a vessel that has been issued a Federal 
Atlantic commercial shark permit shall engage in shark finning.
    (j) No person aboard a vessel that has been issued a Federal 
Atlantic commercial shark permit shall possess on board shark fins 
without the fins being naturally attached to the corresponding 
carcass(es), although sharks may be dressed at sea.
    (k) No person aboard a vessel that has been issued a Federal 
Atlantic commercial shark permit shall land shark fins without the fins 
being naturally attached to the corresponding carcass(es).
    (l) A dealer may not purchase, from an owner or operator of a 
fishing vessel issued an Atlantic commercial shark permit who lands 
shark in an Atlantic coastal port, fins that were not naturally 
attached to the corresponding carcass at the time of landing or whose 
wet weight exceeds 5 percent of the dressed weight of the corresponding 
carcass(es).

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

    7. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 635 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    8. In Sec.  635.1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.1  Purpose and scope.

    (a) The regulations in this part govern the conservation and 
management of Atlantic tunas, Atlantic billfish, Atlantic sharks, and 
Atlantic swordfish under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
ATCA. They implement the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery 
Management Plan and its amendments. The Atlantic tunas regulations 
govern conservation and management of Atlantic tunas in the management 
unit. The Atlantic billfish regulations govern conservation and 
management of Atlantic billfish in the management unit. The Atlantic 
swordfish regulations govern conservation and management of North and 
South Atlantic swordfish in the management unit. North Atlantic 
swordfish are managed under the authority of both ATCA and the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. South Atlantic swordfish are managed under the 
sole authority of ATCA. The shark regulations govern conservation and 
management of sharks in the management unit, under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
* * * * *
    9. In Sec.  635.2, the definitions of ``Federal Atlantic commercial 
shark permit,'' and ``Non-blacknose SCS,'' are added in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec.  635.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Federal Atlantic Commercial Shark Permit means any of the following 
commercial permits: the shark directed limited access permit, the 
incidental shark limited access permit, and the smooth dogfish permit 
issued pursuant to Sec.  635.4.
* * * * *
    Non-blacknose SCS means one of the species, or part thereof, listed 
in paragraph (A) of table 1 in appendix A to this part other than the 
blacknose shark (Carcharhinus acronotus).
* * * * *
    10. In Sec.  635.4, paragraphs (e) and (g)(2) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits and fees.

* * * * *
    (e) Shark vessel permits. (1) The owner of each vessel used to fish 
for or take Atlantic sharks or on which Atlantic sharks are retained, 
possessed with an intention to sell, or sold must obtain, in addition 
to any other required permits, at least one of three types of 
commercial shark permits: shark directed limited access permit, shark 
incidental limited access permit, or a smooth dogfish permit. It is a 
rebuttable presumption that the owner or operator of a vessel on which 
sharks are possessed in excess of the recreational retention limits 
intends to sell the sharks.
    (2) The only valid Federal commercial shark directed and shark 
incidental limited access permits are those that have been issued under 
the limited access program consistent with the provisions under 
paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section.
    (3) Persons issued or required to be issued a Federal commercial 
shark directed or shark incidental limited access permit may harvest, 
consistent with the other regulations in this part, any species in 
Table 1 of Appendix A of this part except for the dogfish sharks listed 
in the other complex. A directed or incidental shark limited access 
permit may be issued to a vessel that also holds a smooth dogfish 
permit.
    (4) Persons issued or required to be issued a Federal commercial 
smooth dogfish permit may harvest, consistent with the other 
regulations in this part, only the dogfish sharks listed in the other 
complex. A smooth dogfish permit may be issued to a vessel that also 
holds either a directed or incidental shark limited access permit.
    (5) A commercial permit for sharks is not required if the vessel is 
recreationally fishing and retains no more sharks than the recreational 
retention limit, is operating pursuant to the conditions of a shark 
EFP, or fishes exclusively within State waters.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Shark. A first receiver, as defined in Sec.  635.2, of Atlantic 
sharks, including dogfish sharks listed in the other complex, must 
possess a valid dealer permit.
* * * * *
    11. In Sec.  635.5:
    A. Paragraph (a)(4) is removed.
    B. Paragraph (a)(5) is redesignated as paragraph (a)(4).
    C. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) is revised.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  635.5  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Dealers that have been issued or should have been issued an 
Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and/or sharks dealer permit under Sec.  
635.4 must submit to NMFS all reports required under this section. All 
reports must be species-specific and must include information about all 
HMS landed regardless of

[[Page 36918]]

where harvested or whether the vessel is Federally permitted under 
Sec.  635.4. For sharks, each report must specify both the total fin 
weight and the total dressed weight of the carcass(es) separately from 
each other. In cases where different dealers handle the fins and the 
shark meat, either the report required in this section or the weighout 
slip required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must indicate which 
dealer handled which portion of the shark. As stated in Sec.  
635.4(a)(6), failure to comply with these recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements may result in the existing dealer permit being revoked, 
suspended, or modified, and in the denial of any permit applications.
* * * * *
    12. In Sec.  635.20, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.20  Size limits.

* * * * *
    (e) Sharks. All sharks landed under the recreational retention 
limits specified at Sec.  635.22(c) must have the head, tail, and fins 
naturally attached. All sharks, except Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, 
smooth dogfish, and Florida dogfish, landed under the recreational 
retention limits specified at Sec.  635.22(c) must be at least 54 
inches (137 cm) FL.
* * * * *
    13. In Sec.  635.21, paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(B) and (e)(3) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Northern South Carolina. Bounded on the north by 
32[deg]53.5[min] N. lat.; on the south by 32[deg]48.5[min] N. lat.; on 
the east by 78[deg]04.75[min] W. long.; and on the west by 
78[deg]16.75[min] W. long.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Sharks. (i) No person may possess a shark in the EEZ taken from 
its management unit without a permit issued under Sec.  635.4. No 
person issued a commercial shark permit under Sec.  635.4 may possess a 
shark taken by any gear other than rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, 
longline, or gillnet. No person issued an HMS Angling permit or an HMS 
Charter/headboat permit under Sec.  635.4 may possess a shark in the 
EEZ if the shark was taken from its management unit by any gear other 
than rod and reel or handline, except that persons on a vessel issued 
both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit may 
possess sharks taken with rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, 
longline, or gillnet if the vessel is not engaged in a for-hire fishing 
trip.
    (ii) No person may fish for sharks with a gillnet with a total 
length of 2.5 km or more. No person may have on board a vessel a 
gillnet with a total length of 2.5 km or more.
    (iii) No person may fish for or possess sharks with gillnet gear 
onboard south of 33[deg]52' N. Lat. (the northern border of South 
Carolina), including in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.
    (iv) Persons fishing with gillnet gear must comply with the 
provisions implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, 
the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan, the Harbor Porpoise Take 
Reduction Plan, and any other relevant Take Reduction Plan set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  229.32 through 229.35 of this title.
    (vi) While fishing for sharks with a gillnet, the gillnet must 
remain attached to at least one vessel at one end, except during net 
checks. Vessel operators are required to conduct net checks every 0.5 
to 2 hours to look for and remove any sea turtles, marine mammals, or 
smalltooth sawfish. Smalltooth sawfish should not be removed from the 
water while being removed from the net.
* * * * *
    14. In Sec.  635.22, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.22  Recreational retention limits.

    (a) General. Atlantic HMS caught, possessed, retained, or landed 
under these recreational limits may not be sold or transferred to any 
person for a commercial purpose. Recreational retention limits apply to 
a longbill spearfish taken or possessed shoreward of the outer boundary 
of the Atlantic EEZ, to a shark taken from or possessed in the Atlantic 
Ocean including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, to a North 
Atlantic swordfish taken from or possessed in the Atlantic Ocean, and 
to bluefin and yellowfin tuna taken from or possessed in the Atlantic 
Ocean. The operator of a vessel for which a retention limit applies is 
responsible for the vessel retention limit and for the cumulative 
retention limit based on the number of persons aboard. Federal 
recreational retention limits may not be combined with any recreational 
retention limit applicable in State waters.
* * * * *
    (c) Sharks. (1) Only one shark from the following list may be 
retained per vessel per trip, subject to the size limits described in 
Sec.  635.20(e): any of the non-ridgeback sharks listed under heading 
A.2 of Table 1 in Appendix A of this part, tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier), 
blue (Prionace glauca), common thresher (Alopias vulpinus), oceanic 
whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus), porbeagle (Lamna nasus), shortfin 
mako (Isurus oxyricnchus), Atlantic sharpnose (Rhizoprionodon 
terraenovae), finetooth (C. isodon), and bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo).
    (2) In addition to the sharks listed under paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, one Atlantic sharpnose shark and one bonnethead shark may be 
retained per person per trip; regardless of the length of a trip, no 
more than one Atlantic sharpnose shark and one bonnethead shark per 
person may be possessed on board a vessel.
    (3) In addition to the sharks listed under paragraphs (c)(1) and 
(c)(2) of this section, smooth and Florida dogfish sharks may be 
retained.
    (4) No prohibited sharks, including parts or pieces of prohibited 
sharks, which are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to this part under 
prohibited sharks, may be retained regardless of where harvested. 
Sharks not listed in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section 
may not be retained.
    (5) The recreational retention limit for sharks applies to any 
person who fishes in any manner, except to persons aboard a vessel that 
has been issued a commercial shark vessel permit under Sec.  635.4. If 
a commercial Atlantic shark quota is closed under Sec.  635.28, the 
recreational retention limit for sharks and no sale provision in 
paragraph (a) of this section may be applied to persons aboard a vessel 
issued a commercial shark vessel permit under Sec.  635.4, only if that 
vessel has also been issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit issued under 
Sec.  635.4 and is engaged in a for-hire fishing trip.
* * * * *
    15. In Sec.  635.24, paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) are 
revised and paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  635.24  Commercial retention limits for sharks and swordfish.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4)(i) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued 
a directed shark LAP may retain, possess, or land pelagic sharks if the 
pelagic shark fishery is open per Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28.
    (ii) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
directed shark LAP may retain, possess, or land SCS, including 
blacknose sharks, if the SCS fishery is open per Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 
635.28.

[[Page 36919]]

    (iii) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued 
an incidental LAP for sharks may retain, possess, or land no more than 
16 non-blacknose SCS and pelagic sharks, combined, per trip, if the 
respective fishery is open per Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28. Such a 
person may not retain, possess, or land blacknose sharks.
    (5) Only persons who own or operate a vessel that has been issued a 
Federal commercial smooth dogfish permit may retain, possess, and land 
smooth or florida dogfish sharks if the respective fishery is open per 
Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28.
    (6) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
commercial shark permit may not retain, possess, land, sell, or 
purchase prohibited sharks, including any parts or pieces of prohibited 
sharks, which are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to this part under 
prohibited sharks.
    (7) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
commercial shark permit, and who decides to retain sharks, must retain, 
subject to the trip limits, all dead, legal-sized, non-prohibited 
sharks that are brought onboard the vessel and cannot replace those 
sharks with sharks of higher quality or size that are caught later in 
the trip. Any fish that are to be released cannot be brought onboard 
the vessel and must be released in the water in a manner that maximizes 
survival.
* * * * *
    16. In Sec.  635.27, paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, 
(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(iii) through (vii), and (b)(2) are revised and 
paragraph (b)(1)(viii) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  635.27  Quotas.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Commercial quotas. The commercial quotas for sharks specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vii) of this section apply to 
all sharks harvested from the management units, regardless of where 
harvested. Sharks taken and landed from State waters, even by fishermen 
without Federal shark permits, must be counted against the fishery 
quota. Commercial quotas are specified for each of the complexes or 
species of sandbar sharks, non-sandbar LCS, non-blacknose SCS, 
blacknose sharks, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, pelagic sharks other 
than blue or porbeagle sharks, and other sharks. Any sharks landed as 
unclassified will be counted against the appropriate complex's or 
species' quota based on the species composition calculated from data 
collected by observers on non-research trips and/or dealer data. No 
prohibited sharks, including parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, 
which are listed under heading D of Table 1 of Appendix A to this part, 
may be retained except as authorized under Sec.  635.32.
    (i) Fishing seasons. The fishing season for sandbar sharks, non-
sandbar LCS, all small coastal sharks, all pelagic sharks, and other 
sharks will begin on January 1 and end on December 31.
* * * * *
    (iii) Sandbar sharks. The base annual commercial quota for sandbar 
sharks is 116.6 mt dw. However, from July 24, 2008 through December 31, 
2012, to account for overharvests that occurred in 2007, the adjusted 
base quota is 87.9 mt dw. Both the base quota and the adjusted base 
quota may be further adjusted per paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this 
section. This quota is available only to the owners of commercial shark 
vessels that have been issued a valid shark research permit and that 
have a NMFS-approved observer onboard.
    (iv) Non-sandbar LCS. The total base quota for non-sandbar LCS is 
677.8 mt dw. This base quota is split between the two regions and the 
shark research fishery as follows: Gulf of Mexico = 439.5 mt dw; 
Atlantic = 188.3 mt dw; and Shark Research Fishery = 50 mt dw. However, 
from July 24, 2008 through December 31, 2012, to account for 
overharvests that occurred in 2007, the total adjusted base quota is 
615.8 mt dw. This adjusted base quota is split between the regions and 
the shark research fishery as follows: Gulf of Mexico = 390.5 mt dw; 
Atlantic = 187.8 mt dw; and Shark Research Fishery = 37.5 mt dw. Both 
the base quota and the adjusted base quota may be further adjusted per 
paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section.
    (v) Small coastal sharks. The base annual commercial quota for non-
blacknose small coastal sharks is 56.9 mt dw, unless adjusted pursuant 
to paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section. The base annual commercial 
quota for blacknose sharks is 14.9 mt dw, unless adjusted pursuant to 
paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section.
    (vi) Pelagic sharks. The base annual commercial quotas for pelagic 
sharks are 273 mt dw for blue sharks, 1.7 mt dw for porbeagle sharks, 
and 488 mt dw for pelagic sharks other than blue sharks or porbeagle 
sharks, unless adjusted pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this 
section.
    (vii) Other sharks. The base annual commercial quota for other 
sharks is 645.8 mt dw, unless adjusted pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(1)(viii) of this section.
    (viii) Annual adjustments. NMFS will publish in the Federal 
Register any annual adjustments to the base annual commercial quotas or 
the 2008 through 2012 adjusted base quotas. The base annual quota and 
the adjusted base annual quota will not be available, and the fishery 
will not open, until such adjustments are published and effective in 
the Federal Register.
    (A) Overharvests. If the available quota for sandbar sharks, non-
blacknose SCS, blacknose sharks, porbeagle sharks, pelagic sharks other 
than blue or porbeagle sharks, and other sharks is exceeded in any 
fishing season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the 
overharvest(s) from the following fishing season or, depending on the 
level of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct an amount equivalent to the 
overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a 
maximum of five years. If the annual quota in a particular region or in 
the research fishery for non-sandbar LCS is exceeded in any fishing 
season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) 
from the following fishing season or, depending on the level of 
overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct an amount equivalent to the 
overharvest(s) spread over a number of subsequent fishing seasons to a 
maximum of five years, in the specific region or research fishery where 
the overharvest occurred. If the blue shark quota is exceeded, NMFS 
will reduce the annual commercial quota for pelagic sharks by the 
amount that the blue shark quota is exceeded prior to the start of the 
next fishing season or, depending on the level of overharvest(s), 
deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number 
of subsequent fishing seasons to a maximum of five years.
    (B) Underharvests. If an annual quota for sandbar sharks, non-
blacknose SCS, blacknose sharks, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, pelagic 
sharks other than blue or porbeagle, or other sharks is not exceeded, 
NMFS may adjust the annual quota depending on the status of the stock 
or quota group. If the annual quota for non-sandbar LCS is not exceeded 
in either region or in the research fishery, NMFS may adjust the annual 
quota for that region or the research fishery depending on the status 
of the stock or quota group. If the stock (e.g., sandbar shark, 
porbeagle shark, pelagic shark, or blue shark) or specific species 
within a quota group (e.g., non-sandbar LCS or non-blacknose SCS) is 
declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an 
unknown status, NMFS may not adjust the following fishing year's quota 
for any underharvest, and the following fishing year's quota will be 
equal to the base

[[Page 36920]]

annual quota (or the adjusted base quota for sandbar and non-sandbar 
LCS until December 31, 2012). If the stock is not declared to be 
overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown 
status, NMFS may increase the following year's base annual quota (or 
the adjusted base quota for sandbar and non-sandbar LCS until December 
31, 2012) by an equivalent amount of the underharvest up to 50 percent 
above the base annual quota. For the non-sandbar LCS fishery, 
underharvests are not transferable between regions and/or the research 
fishery.
    (2) Public display and non-specific research quota. The base annual 
quota for persons who collect non-sandbar LCS, SCS, pelagic sharks, 
blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, or prohibited species under a display 
permit or EFP is 57.2 mt ww (41.2 mt dw). The base annual quota for 
persons who collect smooth or Florida dogfish sharks under a display 
permit or EFP is 6 mt ww (4.3 mt dw). The base annual quota for persons 
who collect sandbar sharks under a display permit is 1.4 mt ww (1 mt 
dw) and under an EFP is 1.4 mt ww (1 mt dw). No persons may collect 
dusky sharks under a display permit. Collection of dusky sharks for 
research under EFPs and/or SRPs may be considered on a case by case 
basis and any associated mortality would be deducted from the shark 
research and display quota. All sharks collected under the authority of 
a display permit or EFP, subject to restrictions at Sec.  635.32, will 
be counted against these quotas.
* * * * *
    17. In Sec.  635.28, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.28  Closures.

* * * * *
    (b) Sharks. (1) If quota is available as specified by a publication 
in the Federal Register, the commercial fisheries for sandbar shark, 
non-sandbar LCS, non-blacknose SCS, blacknose shark, porbeagle sharks, 
blue sharks, pelagic sharks other than blue or porbeagle sharks, and 
other sharks will remain open as specified at Sec.  635.27(b)(1).
    (2) When NMFS calculates that the fishing season landings for 
sandbar shark, non-sandbar LCS, blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, pelagic 
sharks other than blue or porbeagle sharks, or other sharks has reached 
or is projected to reach 80 percent of the available quota as specified 
in Sec.  635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for public inspection with the 
Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for that shark 
species group and/or region that will be effective no fewer than 5 days 
from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure 
until NMFS announces, via the publication of a notice in the Federal 
Register, that additional quota is available and the season is 
reopened, the fishery for the shark species group and, for non-sandbar 
LCS, region is closed, even across fishing years.
    (3) When NMFS calculates that the fishing season landings for 
either blacknose sharks or non-blacknose SCS has reached or is 
projected to reach 80 percent of the available quota as specified in 
Sec.  635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for public inspection with the 
Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for the entire SCS 
fishery, including the blacknose shark fishery, 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 quota is available and 
the season is reopened, the fishery for non-blacknose SCS and blacknose 
sharks is closed, even across fishing years.
    (4) When the fishery for a shark species group and/or region is 
closed, a fishing vessel, issued a commercial shark permit pursuant to 
Sec.  635.4, may not possess or sell a shark of that species group and/
or region, except under the conditions specified in Sec.  635.22(a) and 
(c) or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under 
Sec.  635.32 and an NMFS-approved observer is onboard. A shark dealer, 
issued a permit pursuant to Sec.  635.4, may not purchase or receive a 
shark of that species group and/or region from a vessel issued a 
commercial shark permit, except that a permitted shark dealer or 
processor may possess sharks that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, 
traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and 
were held in storage. Under a closure for a shark species group, a 
shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to Sec.  635.4 may, in 
accordance with State regulations, purchase or receive a shark of that 
species group if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, 
traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in State waters and 
that has not been issued a commercial shark permit, HMS Angling permit, 
or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to Sec.  635.4. Additionally, 
under a closure for a shark species group and/or regional closure, a 
shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to Sec.  635.4 may purchase or 
receive a shark of that species group if the sharks were harvested, 
off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel issued a valid 
shark research permit (per Sec.  635.32) that had an NMFS-approved 
observer on board during the trip sharks were collected.
* * * * *
    18. In Sec.  635.30, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.30  Possession at sea and landing.

* * * * *
    (c) Shark. (1) In addition to the regulations issued at part 600, 
subpart N, of this chapter, a person who owns or operates a vessel 
issued a commercial shark permit under Sec.  635.4 must maintain all 
the shark fins including the tail on the shark carcass until the shark 
has been offloaded from the vessel.
    While sharks are on board and when sharks are being offloaded, 
persons issued a commercial shark permit under Sec.  635.4 are subject 
to the regulations at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter.
    (2) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has a valid 
commercial shark permit may remove the head and viscera of the shark 
while on board the vessel. At any time when on the vessel, sharks must 
not have the backbone removed and must not be halved, quartered, 
filleted, or otherwise reduced. All fins, including the tail, must 
remain naturally attached to the shark through offloading. While on the 
vessel, fins may be sliced so that the fin can be folded along the 
carcass for storage purposes as long as the fin remains naturally 
attached to the carcass via at least a small portion of uncut skin. The 
fins and tail may only be removed from the carcass once the shark has 
been landed and offloaded.
    (3) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
commercial shark permit and who lands sharks in an Atlantic coastal 
port must have all fins and carcasses weighed and recorded on the 
weighout slips specified in Sec.  635.5(a)(2) and in accordance with 
part 600, subpart N, of this chapter. Persons may not possess any shark 
fins not naturally attached to a shark carcass on board a fishing 
vessel at any time. Once landed and offloaded, sharks that have been 
halved, quartered, filleted, cut up, or reduced in any manner may not 
be brought back on board a vessel that has been or should have been 
issued a Federal commercial shark permit.
    (4) Persons aboard a vessel that does not have a commercial shark 
permit must maintain a shark in or from the EEZ intact through landing 
with the head, tail, and all fins naturally attached. The shark may be 
bled and the viscera may be removed.
* * * * *
    19. In Sec.  635.32, paragraph (e)(3) is revised to read as 
follows:

[[Page 36921]]

Sec.  635.32   Specifically authorized activities.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Charter permit holders must submit logbooks and comply with 
reporting requirements as specified in Sec.  635.5. NMFS will provide 
specific conditions and requirements in the chartering permit, so as to 
ensure consistency, to the extent possible, with laws of foreign 
countries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, as well as 
ICCAT recommendations.
* * * * *
    20. In Sec.  635.69, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec.  635.69  Vessel Monitoring Systems.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Whenever a vessel issued a directed shark LAP, is away from 
port with bottom longline gear on board, is located between 33[deg]00' 
N. lat. and 36[deg]30' N. lat., and the mid-Atlantic shark closed area 
is closed as specified in Sec.  635.21(d)(1); or
    (3) Whenever a vessel, issued a directed shark LAP, is away from 
port with a gillnet on board from November 15--April 15.
* * * * *
    21. In Appendix A to Part 635, Table 1 of Appendix A to Part 635 is 
revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 635--Species Tables

Table 1 of Appendix A to Part 635--Oceanic Sharks

A. Large coastal sharks:
    1. Ridgeback sharks:
    Sandbar, Carcharhinus plumbeus
    Silky, Carcharhinus falciformis
    Tiger, Galeocerdo cuvier
2. Non-ridgeback sharks:
    Blacktip, Carcharhinus limbatus
    Bull, Carcharhinus leucas
    Great hammerhead, Sphyrna mokarran
    Lemon, Negaprion brevirostris
    Nurse, Ginglymostoma cirratum
    Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini
    Smooth hammerhead, Sphyrna zygaena
    Spinner, Carcharhinus brevipinna
B. Small coastal sharks:
    Atlantic sharpnose, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae
    Blacknose, Carcharhinus acronotus
    Bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo
    Finetooth, Carcharhinus isodon
C. Pelagic sharks:
    Blue, Prionace glauca
    Oceanic whitetip, Carcharhinus longimanus
    Porbeagle, Lamna nasus
    Shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus
    Thresher, Alopias vulpinus
D. Other sharks:
    Smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis
    Florida dogfish, Mustelus norrisi
E. Prohibited sharks:
    Atlantic angel, Squatina dumerili
    Basking, Cetorhinus maximus
    Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai
    Bigeye sixgill, Hexanchus nakamurai
    Bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus
    Bignose, Carcharhinus altimus
    Caribbean reef, Carcharhinus perezii
    Caribbean sharpnose, Rhizoprionodon porosus
    Dusky, Carcharhinus obscurus
    Galapagos, Carcharhinus galapagensis
    Longfin mako, Isurus paucus
    Narrowtooth, Carcharhinus brachyurus
    Night, Carcharhinus signatus
    Sand tiger, Carcharias taurus
    Sevengill, Heptranchias perlo
    Sixgill, Hexanchus griseus
    Smalltail, Carcharhinus porosus
    Whale, Rhincodon typus
    White, Carcharodon carcharias
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-17498 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P