36892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark 

the outside of the envelope Shark 

Amendment 3 comments. 

• Fax: 301–713–1917. 

• 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 MagnusonStevens 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 Tmin

[minimum time for rebuilding a stock] 

for the stock or stock complex is 10 

years or less, then the maximum time 

allowable for rebuilding (Tmax) that 

stock to its BMSY is 10 years.’’ The 

second strategy (50 CFR 

600.310(j)(3)(i)(D)) specifies that if Tmin

for the stock or stock complex exceeds 

10 years, then the maximum time 

allowable for rebuilding a stock or stock 

complex to its BMSY is Tmin 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 fisheryindependent 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose SCS predominately occur on 

BLL gear, therefore, removing gillnet 

gear is not expected to affect discards of 

either blacknose sharks or nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36896 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 shortterm 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 × 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 nonblacknose SCS landings as explained in 

alternative A1, NMFS anticipates that 

directed permit holders would lose 

more in gross revenues from nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 socioeconomic 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36899 

continue to use other commerciallyauthorized 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 nontarget 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° 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36900 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 subalternative 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36902 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 (BMSY) 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36904 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 subalternatives 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 MagnusonStevens 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 nonconfidential 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 atsea 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36906 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 MagnusonStevens 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 Library ............ 221 West 19th Avenue, 

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 Library ...................... 2600 Bayshore Road, 

Villas, NJ 08251. 

8/31/09 .......................................... 3–6 p.m. ........................................ Gulf Beaches Public Library ......... 200 Municipal Drive, 

Madeira Beach, FL 33708. 

9/1/09 ............................................ 5–8 p.m. ........................................ Fort Pierce Library ........................ 101 Melody Lane, 

Fort Pierce, FL 34950. 

9/9/09 ............................................ 2:30–5 p.m. ................................... HMS Advisory Panel Meeting ...... Crowne Plaza, 

8777 Georgia Avenue, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

9/16/09 .......................................... 6–9 p.m. ........................................ Charleston Main Library ............... 68 Callhoun Street, 

Charleston, SC 29401. 

9/22/09 .......................................... 6–9 p.m. ........................................ Belle Chasse Auditorium .............. 8398 Highway 23, 

Belle Chasse, LA 70037. 

9/22/09 .......................................... 5–8 p.m. ........................................ Portsmouth Public Library ............ 175 Parrott Avenue, 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36908 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 collectionof-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 MagnusonStevens 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36910 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 setaside 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 subalternatives 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose SCS quota under alternative 

A3, which would affect more directed 

and incidental permit holders compared 

to the smaller reduction in the nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose 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 nonblacknose SCS, there could be an 

anticipated loss of $708 in average 

annual gross revenues from nonblacknose 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36912 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonblacknose 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 speciesspecific 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36914 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 catchand-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 catchand-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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36916 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 subalternative 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; 

§ 229.32(f) also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq. 

§ 229.2 [Amended] 

2. In § 229.2, the definition of 

‘‘Spotter plane’’ is removed. 

3. In § 229.3, paragraphs (k) and (l) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 229.3 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(k) It is prohibited to fish with or 

possess gillnet gear in the areas and 

during the times specified in 

§ 229.32(f)(1) and (g)(1) unless the 

gillnet gear complies with the marking 

requirements, closures, modifications, 

and restrictions specified in 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 229.32(f)(1), (g)(1) and (h)(1) unless 

the gear complies with the restrictions 

specified in § 229.32(f)(2)(v). 

* * * * * 

4. In § 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: 

§ 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 § 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°00′ N. lat. from November 

15 through April 15 and south of 29°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 areaspecific 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 § 229.2. The Assistant 

Administrator may revise these 

requirements in accordance with 

paragraph (i) of this section. 

* * * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 § 600.1204, paragraphs (g) 

through (l) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 635.1, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 635.2, the definitions of 

‘‘Federal Atlantic commercial shark 

permit,’’ and ‘‘Non-blacknose SCS,’’ are 

added in alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 635.4, paragraphs (e) and 

(g)(2) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 635.2, of Atlantic sharks, including 

dogfish sharks listed in the other 

complex, must possess a valid dealer 

permit. 

* * * * * 

11. In § 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: 

§ 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 § 635.4 must submit to 

NMFS all reports required under this 

section. All reports must be speciesspecific and must include information 

about all HMS landed regardless of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36918 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

where harvested or whether the vessel 

is Federally permitted under § 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 § 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 § 635.20, paragraph (e) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.20 Size limits. 

* * * * * 

(e) Sharks. All sharks landed under 

the recreational retention limits 

specified at § 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 

§ 635.22(c) must be at least 54 inches 

(137 cm) FL. 

* * * * * 

13. In § 635.21, paragraphs 

(d)(1)(iii)(B) and (e)(3) are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 635.21 Gear operation and deployment 

restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) Northern South Carolina. 

Bounded on the north by 32°53.5′ N. 

lat.; on the south by 32°48.5′ N. lat.; on 

the east by 78°04.75′ W. long.; and on 

the west by 78°16.75′ 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 § 635.4. No person issued 

a commercial shark permit under 

§ 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 § 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°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 §§ 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 § 635.22, paragraphs (a) and (c) 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 635.20(e): any of the nonridgeback 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 

§ 635.4. If a commercial Atlantic shark 

quota is closed under § 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 

§ 635.4, only if that vessel has also been 

issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit 

issued under § 635.4 and is engaged in 

a for-hire fishing trip. 

* * * * * 

15. In § 635.24, paragraphs (a)(4), 

(a)(5), and (a)(6) are revised and 

paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 635.27 and 

635.28. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 nonblacknose SCS and pelagic sharks, 

combined, per trip, if the respective 

fishery is open per §§ 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 §§ 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, legalsized, 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 § 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: 

§ 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, nonsandbar 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 nonresearch trips and/or dealer data. No 

prohibited sharks, including parts or 

pieces of prohibited sharks, which are 

listed under heading D of Table 1 of 

Appendix A to this part, may be 

retained except as authorized under 

§ 635.32. 

(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 NMFSapproved 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 nonblacknose 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
36920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonsandbar 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 § 635.32, will be counted 

against these quotas. 

* * * * * 

17. In § 635.28, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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, nonblacknose SCS, blacknose shark, 

porbeagle sharks, blue sharks, pelagic 

sharks other than blue or porbeagle 

sharks, and other sharks will remain 

open as specified at § 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 § 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 § 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 § 635.4, may 

not possess or sell a shark of that 

species group and/or region, except 

under the conditions specified in 

§ 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel 

possesses a valid shark research permit 

under § 635.32 and an NMFS-approved 

observer is onboard. A shark dealer, 

issued a permit pursuant to § 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 § 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 § 635.4. 

Additionally, under a closure for a shark 

species group and/or regional closure, a 

shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant 

to § 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 

§ 635.32) that had an NMFS-approved 

observer on board during the trip sharks 

were collected. 

* * * * * 

18. In § 635.30, paragraph (c) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 635.32, paragraph (e)(3) is 

revised to read as follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36921 

§ 635.32 Specifically authorized activities. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) Charter permit holders must 

submit logbooks and comply with 

reporting requirements as specified in 

§ 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 § 635.69, paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(a)(3) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 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°00′ N. lat. and 

36°30′ N. lat., and the mid-Atlantic 

shark closed area is closed as specified 

in § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS4