[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16648-16656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8754]



[[Page 16647]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 678



Atlantic Shark Fisheries: Quotas, Bag Limits, Prohibitions, and 
Requirements and Large Coastal Shark Species; Final Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 16648]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 678

[Docket No. 961211348-7065-03; I.D. 092396B]
RIN 0648-AH77


Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Quotas, Bag Limits, Prohibitions, and 
Requirements

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement certain measures 
authorized by the Fishery Management Plan for Sharks of the Atlantic 
Ocean (FMP). These measures: Reduce commercial quotas for large coastal 
sharks, reduce recreational bag limits; establish a commercial quota 
for small coastal sharks; prohibit directed commercial fishing for, 
landing of, or sale of five species of sharks; establish a recreational 
catch-and-release only fishery for white sharks; prohibit filleting of 
sharks at sea; and refers to the requirement for species-specific 
identification by all owners or operators, dealers, and tournament 
operators of all sharks landed under the framework provisions of the 
FMP. This rule is intended to reduce effective fishing mortality, 
stabilize the large coastal shark population, facilitate enforcement, 
and improve management of Atlantic shark resources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment and Regulatory 
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) may 
be obtained from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division 
(SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 713-2347, fax (301) 713-1917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Michael Bailey, John D. Kelly or 
Margo B. Schulze, 301-713-2347, FAX 301-713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under 
the FMP prepared by NMFS under authority of Section 304(g) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and implemented through regulations found at 50 CFR part 
678. The current status of the commercial and recreational shark 
fisheries, the status of the shark stocks, the proposed management 
measures, and the anticipated effects of the proposed management 
measures were discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 
67295, December 20, 1996) and are not repeated here.
    The framework provisions of the FMP allow the Assistant 
Administrator (AA) to make adjustments in specified management measures 
in order to achieve the FMP's objectives of preventing overfishing, and 
increasing the benefits of shark resources to the nation while reducing 
waste. This action is being taken by the AA under authority of the 
framework provisions of the FMP and consistent with the provisions of 
305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Comments and Responses

    Comments were requested for the measures in the proposed rule. The 
comment period on the proposed rule was originally scheduled to end on 
January 21, 1997. Four public hearings were held on the proposed rule. 
Due to scheduling conflicts for the final hearing, the public comment 
period was extended until January 24, 1997 (62 FR 1872, January 14, 
1997). Based on public request, the comment period was again extended 
until February 7, 1997 (62 FR 4239, January 29, 1997), to allow for 
additional public input.
    NMFS received more than 600 written comments from members of 
Congress, regional fishery management councils, states, the U.S. Coast 
Guard, conservation organizations, a scientific organization, 
scientists from four universities, scientists from a marine laboratory, 
recreational fishing associations, marine oriented publications, 
recreational fishermen involved in the party/charter boat business, a 
business that sells shark parts, commercial fishermen, commercial 
fishermen's associations, a fisheries development foundation, 
individuals, and a shark fishery observer. NMFS also received verbal 
comments on this rule at public hearings and other public meetings. 
Agency responses to public comments follow.

1. Large Coastal Shark Commercial Quota

    NMFS received several hundred comments regarding the large coastal 
shark commercial quota. In addition to numerous individuals, seventy-
four comments from members of Congress, regional fishery management 
councils, states, conservation organizations, a scientific 
organization, and recreational fishing associations support a 50 
percent or higher commercial quota reduction for large coastal sharks 
as a minimum measure to rebuild the large coastal shark population. 
Other commentors, including one state and several commercial 
fishermen's associations, questioned the effectiveness of the quota 
reduction and/or strenuously opposed the quota reduction and stated 
that the scientific data, upon which the 1996 Stock Evaluation Workshop 
(SEW) final report is based, are incomplete, flawed, and/or biased.
    Comment: Stock assessment results indicate that large coastal 
sharks remain overfished and that rebuilding has not begun. Demographic 
analyses show that effective fishing mortality needs to be halved in 
order for large coastal sharks to recover. NMFS needs to take action 
immediately and reduce the commercial quota for large coastal sharks by 
50 percent at a minimum.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the 1996 SEW final report indicates that 
large coastal sharks remain overfished and that a risk-averse approach 
is needed. A 50 percent reduction in commercial quota for large 
coastals is an approximation to halving current effective fishing 
mortality. Production model analyses indicate that a 50 percent 
reduction in effective fishing mortality is likely to maintain large 
coastal sharks near 1996 levels. This will ensure that allowable 
catches of large coastals are consistent with the best available 
scientific information and reduce the probability of further declines 
until a new rebuilding schedule can be developed. The final action is 
intended as an interim measure because NMFS intends to update the 
scientific information to the extent practicable and to develop a long-
term rebuilding schedule for large coastal sharks. NMFS intends to 
implement this updated rebuilding schedule through an FMP amendment in 
consultation with an Advisory Panel (AP) as required by the amended 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. At that time, NMFS will analyze alternative 
management measures, such as nursery/pupping ground closures and 
minimum sizes, and may adjust commercial quota levels if alternative 
management measures can supplement quotas in controlling effective 
fishing mortality. Towards this end, NMFS has accelerated an ongoing 
effort to determine the potential effects of these alternative 
management measures on fishing mortality.
    Comment: NMFS should close the large coastal commercial fishery 
until there is clear evidence that rebuilding has been initiated.

[[Page 16649]]

    Response: NMFS disagrees that a fishery closure is necessary to 
initiate rebuilding of large coastal sharks at this time. The 1996 SEW 
final report indicates that the rapid rate of decline that 
characterized the stock in the mid 1980's has slowed significantly and 
that there is no statistically significant evidence of further decline 
since the FMP was implemented, indicating that the FMP management 
measures implemented have been working. While it is true that clear 
evidence of rebuilding is not available, NMFS believes that the final 
action will reduce the probability of further declines until 
alternative management measures are developed. The 1996 SEW production 
model analyses, which are probabilistic in nature, also indicate that a 
50 percent reduction in quota may lead to slow rebuilding. 
Additionally, a fishery closure would impose substantial hardship on 
the commercial fishing sector and would likely increase fishing 
pressure on other fishery resources, particularly the fully fished 
small coastal and pelagic sharks.
    Comment: NMFS should not reduce the large coastal shark quota at 
all. Recent increases in some catch per unit effort indices in addition 
to significant uncertainty in accuracy of data, model simulation 
results, and interpretation of assessment results do not warrant 
drastic reductions. NMFS should address alternative management 
measures, which might mitigate or eliminate the need for quota 
reductions, before making significant changes in commercial quotas.
    Response: NMFS is aware that different interpretations exist 
regarding the accuracy and interpretation of the 1996 SEW stock 
assessment results. These differences are an important part of the 
scientific process which involves rigorous discussion and analysis of 
all interpretations of assessment results. However, NMFS does not 
believe that disagreement or uncertainty preclude valid management 
actions. It is true that some catch rate indices have shown recent 
increases and that assessment results can be interpreted to support the 
status quo for quota levels. However, it should be noted that none of 
those increases in catch rate indices were statistically significant 
because of high variability in the data. Until a long-term rebuilding 
schedule which includes alternative management measures can be analyzed 
and developed, NMFS believes that a risk-averse approach is necessary 
to reduce the probability of further declines.
    Comment: The State of North Carolina expressed concern with the 
proposed 50 percent reduction in the quota by stating: ``Our concern 
with quota reduction as the sole method of achieving the reduction in 
fishing mortality is that the population simulation models are based on 
data that are inadequate to incorporate the benefits of the management 
measures implemented in the FMP in 1993. These data are not available 
because increases in production since the 1993 FMP have not entered the 
fishery.''
    Response: NMFS believes that there is measurable evidence of the 
effects of management since implementation of the FMP. The 1996 SEW 
final report states that the rapid rate of decline that characterized 
the large coastal shark stocks in the mid 1980's has slowed 
significantly. However, no clear evidence is available that rebuilding 
has begun. The report also states that additional reductions in fishing 
mortality would improve the probability of stock increases. The 
commercial quota reduction for large coastal species is intended to be 
an interim measure while other management options are examined.
    Comment: The 1996 SEW analyses did not account for gear changes 
made by the industry to use lighter leaders and smaller hooks that 
result in increased bite-offs, lowered catches and catch rate indices, 
and smaller size of fish landed.
    Response: NMFS is aware that changes in fishing patterns, including 
gear modifications, can affect stock assessment results but currently 
is unable to account for such gear modifications quantitatively due to 
lack of detailed data. Nevertheless, this change in fishing practice 
was taken into account by comparing trends in affected and unaffected 
catch rate indices. Gear modifications including changes like lighter 
leaders and smaller hooks occurred only in the longline commercial 
fisheries. However, the 1996 SEW stock assessment for large coastal 
sharks included many different catch rate indices from several 
different commercial and recreational fisheries (see the 1996 SEW final 
report detailed discussion), including fishery independent longline 
indices which also show catch per unit effort declines. Therefore, NMFS 
believes that declines in catch rates, as evidenced from all catch 
rates indices analyzed in the stock assessment, are real. NMFS will 
continue to include consideration of these issues in analyzing and 
developing a long-term rebuilding plan.
    Comment: Significant amounts of data on shark landings, 
particularly data on fin landings, have not been incorporated in the 
stock assessments, which may substantially bias assessment results.
    Response: It is NMFS' practice to incorporate landings information 
into stock assessments, to the extent appropriate, once it has been 
verified for authenticity, and is in a usable format. Not all data that 
exist in raw form can or should be included in stock assessments. 
However, NMFS is aware that some data may not have been included in the 
stock assessments because they were unavailable (e.g., copies not 
provided to NMFS, not in electronic form, etc.). To this end, NMFS 
intends to work with industry to recover missing data and use them, if 
appropriate and practicable, in order to increase stock assessment 
accuracy and precision.
    Comment: Quota reductions may increase, not decrease, effective 
fishing mortality as well as increase regulatory discards and mortality 
of sharks that cannot be landed during a closed season. Thus National 
Standard 5, which requires that ``conservation and management measures 
shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of 
fishery resources,'' and National Standard 9, which requires that 
``conservation and management measures shall, to the extent 
practicable, minimize bycatch and to the extent such bycatch cannot be 
avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch,'' will be violated as 
the shark fishery becomes increasingly less efficient and regulatory 
discards increase.
    Response: NMFS believes that the large coastal shark quota 
reduction will reduce effective fishing mortality, consistent with the 
best available scientific information. NMFS has concluded that any 
decrease in efficiency due to a reduced quota is outweighed by the 
benefits of preventing further declines while alternative management 
measures are developed. In terms of increased regulatory discards and 
the associated mortality of sharks during a closed season, NMFS does 
not believe that maintaining commercial quota levels above sustainable 
levels in order to reduce discards is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Alternative fishing methods are available to reduce the 
unwanted catch of sharks (e.g., gear modifications like lighter 
leaders, avoiding inshore pupping and nursery grounds where juvenile 
sharks congregate, checking and resetting gear frequently if shark 
catches are high, etc.) that could reduce regulatory discards. At this 
time, the AA does not have the authority to create a bycatch set-aside 
from the commercial quota for the Atlantic shark fishery. However, as 
this final rule is intended to be effective until an FMP amendment can 
be

[[Page 16650]]

developed, NMFS may examine the need to restructure the shark 
commercial fishery to create a bycatch and discard set-aside to account 
for this source of mortality. Finally, NMFS has proposed regulations to 
address overcapitalization of the shark commercial fishery through a 
limited access proposal that is intended to help reduce derby fishing 
conditions and thereby, reduce inefficiency in the shark fishery (61 FR 
68202). Some preliminary comments on this proposed rule, which would 
include creation of an incidental permit category, also call for an 
``incidental'' quota or set-aside.
    Comment: The State of North Carolina was concerned that there may 
be a conflict with National Standards 4 and 6. The state also requested 
clarification of National Standard 10, which requires that 
``Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent 
practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea'' as it relates to 
the shortened quota coinciding with the state's winter season.
    Response: Regarding National Standard 4, the FMP established an 
allocation scheme between recreational and commercial catches, and 
semiannual commercial quotas allow for two fishing seasons with equal 
harvest allocations. The large coastal shark quota reduction reduces 
the quota equally for both fishing seasons and the recreational bag 
limits are reduced to maintain the FMP's allocation scheme; therefore, 
the final management measures are fair and equitable to all fishermen.
    NMFS' action is consistent with National Standard 6. NMFS has 
examined the biological and socio-economic impacts of this final rule 
in the accompanying Final Environmental Assessment and Regulatory 
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. National Standard 
6 requires flexibility and the ability to address circumstances as they 
arise; NMFS is responding to the most recent stock assessment. The 
agency did account for variations and contingencies by reducing the 
large coastal commercial quota, thereby preventing further decline 
while a rebuilding program is developed. Any changed circumstances in 
the future will be addressed by NMFS, in consultation with the AP.
    Regarding National Standard 10, NMFS' analyses indicate that the 
winter shark fishery for North Carolina ranges from October through 
December and that the fishery has not previously been open during these 
months for that state. NMFS is aware that derby fishing conditions can 
develop when quota reductions are proposed and, within the constraints 
of regulatory processes, NMFS has attempted to prevent these conditions 
from developing. For example, NMFS implemented a 4,000 lb trip limit 
for large coastal sharks in an attempt to slow the pace of the fishery; 
this trip limit is currently in effect. However, individuals must 
decide for themselves whether or not it is safe to fish, and NMFS 
encourages fishermen to consider safety issues first and foremost prior 
to making the decision to participate in the fishery.
    Comment: One commercial fishermen's association commented that NMFS 
should follow through on the 1994 SEW's recommendation to protect 
pupping areas and juvenile sharks, rather than halve the quota.
    Response: NMFS does not have regulatory authority over inshore 
waters where most shark nursery/pupping areas are located; however, 
NMFS has been actively working with the coastal states to reach 
agreement on cooperative efforts to protect these critical nursery/
pupping areas. NMFS has greatly accelerated ongoing research to develop 
a nursery ground index and may use the information from these research 
efforts to develop, as part of the long-term rebuilding plan, 
management measures with states to close specific areas to fishing 
activity when gravid females and/or shark pups are present in those 
areas.
    Comment: One commercial fishermen's association commented that 
foreign catches of large coastal and pelagic sharks must be quantified 
and considered in order for stock assessments to include complete and 
accurate data and be in compliance with National Standard 3, which 
states that ``to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish 
shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated 
stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.''
    Response: NMFS has and will continue to work closely with fisheries 
scientists and managers from Atlantic coastal states, Canada, and 
Mexico to assess the state of shared stocks. NMFS believes that 
international cooperation and management of shared shark stocks is very 
important to shark conservation and prevention of overfishing. However, 
NMFS believes that domestic action is needed immediately and this 
interim quota reduction is a risk-averse action, based on the best 
scientific data available, to protect all sharks found in U.S. waters, 
not only shared stocks.
    Comment: The lack of a rational rebuilding schedule should be 
addressed before severe, short term measures are implemented.
    Response: NMFS agrees that a rebuilding schedule needs to be 
developed to address the overfished status of large coastal sharks. 
However, NMFS disagrees that action should await a rebuilding schedule 
to be implemented in an amendment to the shark FMP. The rebuilding plan 
outlined in the original FMP was determined to be inadequate to achieve 
the goal of rebuilding the large costal shark resource to a level 
consistent with MSY (60 FR 21468, May 2, 1995). The 1996 SEW final 
report indicates that a 50 percent reduction in effective fishing 
mortality should stabilize the large coastal shark population near 
current levels. This action is intended to reduce the probability of 
further declines as the rebuilding schedule is developed.
     Comment: NMFS has not taken into account the impacts of a large 
coastal shark quota reduction on shoreside entities, which are 
primarily small businesses. Reducing the large coastal shark quota will 
ruin the domestic shark meat market because the extended fishery 
closures and market gluts disallow advanced planning required for shark 
meat buyers to distribute and advertise the product.
    Response: NMFS believes that most shoreside entities in the shark 
fishery process and sell wet and/or dry shark fins. Information 
available to NMFS indicates that few shoreside entities deal 
exclusively in domestic shark fins. Such fin dealers import the 
majority of fins from other countries and then re-export them 
unprocessed or semi-processed to the Asian fin market. Accordingly, 
U.S. shoreside fin dealers supplement exports with domestic shark fins 
but do not rely on the domestic market. Because domestic shark fins 
make up a very small percentage of the U.S. fin dealer product, a large 
coastal shark domestic quota reduction would have negligible impact on 
such shoreside entities gross revenues.
    On the other hand, there is a limited domestic market for shark 
meat that could be negatively impacted by a reduced supply of product. 
However, the commercial large coastal shark fishery has been open for 
only a few months each year such that shark meat buyers necessarily 
have diversified. Additionally, shark meat is not a high value product 
and is readily substituted by other products. Reducing the season, even 
if by half, should not have a substantial impact because of the already 
short fishing season, low value and volume of shark meat processed, and 
the high degree of diversity in shoreside operations. In consultation 
with an AP, NMFS may develop a market analysis for the shark fin 
industry which may include an estimate

[[Page 16651]]

of the impacts of regulations on processors and society.
    Comment: Numerous commentors were concerned that the final rule is 
inconsistent with National Standard 2, which states; ``Conservation and 
management measures shall be based upon the best available scientific 
information available.'' Several fishermen's associations questioned 
the accuracy and reliability of the 1996 SEW Report, and stated that 
the 50% quota reduction was not a mandate, or even a recommendation of, 
the SEW. In addition, some commentors contended that the SEW Report did 
not recommend a 50% reduction in effective fishing effort through a 50% 
quota reduction.
    Response: The 1996 Report of the SEW is based on a meeting of NMFS 
and non-NMFS scientists. The non-NMFS scientists included 
representatives from two fishery management councils, two states, a 
fisheries development foundation, industry, and academia. All 1996 SEW 
participants were given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the 
report. However, the final report was written and edited by NMFS 
scientists and is not, nor was ever intended to be, a consensus 
document. The 1996 SEW final report heavily weighs all stock assessment 
participants' views in its conclusions and recommendations. While 
different interpretations exist regarding the accuracy and implications 
of the stock assessment results, the 1996 SEW final report represents 
the best scientific data available to NMFS. The commercial quota 
reduction is a risk-averse action to ensure that allowable catch levels 
of Atlantic sharks are consistent with the best available scientific 
information until an updated rebuilding schedule can be developed.
    Comment: One fishermen's association commented that the Shark 
Operations Team (OT) did not consent to a 50% quota reduction, and 
claims that NMFS apparently selectively consulted outside of the OT 
meeting with certain OT members who support dramatic reductions, which 
may violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Response: In the proposed rule (61 FR 67295, December 20, 1996), 
the statement ``Members of the OT were consulted and some members have 
been instrumental in the formulation of this proposed rule; * * *'' 
meant that; 1) some OT members agreed with the determination of the 
SEW, and 2) NMFS scientists who are also OT members have been and will 
continue to be routinely consulted on an ongoing basis. NMFS did not 
meet with non-NMFS OT members except at the public OT meeting in August 
1996. NMFS agrees that the OT did not reach consensus regarding a 
commercial quota reduction. The final action is being taken 
independently by the AA under authority of the framework provisions of 
the FMP because no consensus was reached by the OT and NMFS has 
concluded that action was necessary. NMFS did, however, take into 
account the various opinions raised at the OT meeting.

2. Pelagic Shark Commercial Quota

    NMFS received 65 comments regarding the pelagic shark commercial 
quota from members of Congress, regional fishery management councils, 
states, conservation organizations, scientific organizations, and 
recreational fishing associations. Comment: NMFS should maintain the 
current commercial pelagic shark quota. Pelagic sharks are determined 
to be fully-fished and the commercial quota, which was established to 
ensure that the total allowable catch (TAC) does not exceed a level 
that would preclude maximum sustainable yield (MSY), should not be 
adjusted without new scientific analyses and information.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
     Comment: NMFS should reduce the pelagic shark commercial quota by 
50 percent because the quota has never been reached.
    Response: No change in the commercial quota for pelagic sharks was 
proposed in this action. No new analyses have been presented upon which 
to modify MSY or the TAC of pelagic sharks. Accordingly, the estimates 
of MSY and TAC presented in the FMP still constitute the best available 
scientific information. Until new analyses are presented, adjustments 
to the pelagic shark quota are not warranted. NMFS intends to amend the 
FMP to address the overfished status of large coastal sharks. At that 
time, the pelagic shark quota may be adjusted if new analyses warrant 
modifications.

3. Small Coastal Shark Commercial Quota

    NMFS received numerous comments regarding the small coastal shark 
commercial quota from members of Congress, regional fishery management 
councils, states, conservation organizations, scientific organizations, 
and recreational fishing associations. Several commentors support 
establishment of the proposed commercial quota for small coastal 
sharks, while others argued that no quota was justified or that smaller 
commercial quotas for small coastal sharks were more appropriate.
    Comment: NMFS should implement a commercial quota for small coastal 
sharks to prevent large increases in fishing pressure that may result 
from closure of other fishery resources.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment: NMFS should not implement a commercial quota for small 
coastal sharks because they are not considered overfished and because 
the proposed quota is much greater than historical landings.
    Response: The FMP concluded that small coastal sharks were fully 
fished, meaning that fishing mortality levels should not increase or 
overfishing may occur. NMFS believes that potential displacement of 
vessels and crews from the large coastal shark fishery into other 
fisheries, including pelagic and small coastal shark fisheries, may 
result in increased fishing mortality on small coastal sharks. NMFS 
believes that implementing the commercial quota outlined in the FMP is 
a preventative measure to ensure that any increases in fishing 
mortality do not exceed allowable levels.

4. Recreational Bag Limits

    NMFS has received numerous comments concerning recreational bag 
limits from members of Congress, regional fishery management councils, 
states, individual scientists, conservation organizations, recreational 
fishing associations, one fisheries development foundation, and party/
charter boat owners.
    Comment: Recreational bag limits should be reduced as they are 
currently excessively high and promote waste.
    Response: NMFS agrees, with one exception noted below.
    Comment: Recreational bag limits should not be reduced.
    Response: The 1996 SEW final report determined that large coastal 
sharks continue to be overfished and that a 50 percent reduction in 
effective fishing mortality should stabilize the stock at current 
levels. Based on this report, which constitutes the best available 
scientific information, NMFS believes that the bag limits, as well as 
the commercial quota, should be reduced to further protect and conserve 
the stocks. Recreational bag limits are reduced within the current 
allocation scheme (established in the FMP) between commercial and 
recreational fishing interests. Without a reduction in the bag limit 
equal to the percentage reduction in the commercial quota, the positive 
benefits of a reduction in effective fishing mortality in the 
commercial sector may be negated by increased fishing mortality in the 
recreational sector.

[[Page 16652]]

    Comment: Given the status of the small coastal stock and recent 
landings, adding this group into an aggregate bag limit is overly 
restrictive and unfair to party/charterboats.
    Response: The rationale for adding the small coastal sharks into an 
aggregate bag limit is the significant, widespread misidentification of 
sharks, especially juvenile large coastal sharks identified as small 
coastal sharks. NMFS believes that adding small coastal sharks to a 
species aggregate with large coastals will reduce fishing mortality on 
large coastals and contribute to stock recovery. However, after further 
review of landings data and consultation with NMFS and non-NMFS 
scientists, NMFS recognizes that an additional allowance for Atlantic 
sharpnose sharks, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, would alleviate some of 
the impacts on recreational operations. A separate bag limit for 
Atlantic sharpnose is likely to increase fishing mortality on this 
species as fishing patterns shift away from other species. However, the 
life history of this species and stable population trends since the 
1970's despite considerable bycatch mortality indicate that Atlantic 
sharpnose sharks will not be negatively impacted by a separate bag 
limit. Accordingly, NMFS is changing the proposed reduction in bag 
limits (two sharks per vessel per trip) to the following: Two sharks 
per vessel per trip, for any combination of species except Atlantic 
sharpnose sharks, which will have a bag limit of two fish per person 
per trip.
    Comment: Several commentors stated grouping all shark species into 
one recreational bag limit is not warranted given the status of pelagic 
and small coastal sharks, the ease of differentiating pelagic sharks 
from other species, and the differences in the fisheries.
    Response: NMFS agrees that species-specific management would be a 
preferred means of managing the fishery given sufficient stock 
assessment data and accuracy of species identification in landings. 
However, as stated above, widespread misidentification of sharks 
continues to be a problem that requires attention because of the 
overfished large coastals. Additionally, NMFS believes that potential 
displacement of vessels and crews from the large coastal shark fishery 
into other fisheries, including pelagic and small coastal shark 
fisheries, warrants adopting a single recreational bag limit for all 
shark species combined with the exception for Atlantic sharpnose sharks 
as stated above. NMFS agrees that, for certain species that are readily 
identifiable, species-specific management measures may be possible in 
the future. NMFS has accelerated efforts to develop a useful shark 
identification manual and training for fishermen.

5. Prohibited Species

    Numerous members of Congress, regional fishery management councils, 
states, conservation organizations, scientific associations, and 
recreational fishing associations support the species prohibitions 
whereas other recreational fishing associations oppose the 
prohibitions. Numerous scientists expressed their concern that a 
prohibition would adversely affect ongoing research into these five 
species.
    Comment: Some species of sharks are especially vulnerable to 
overexploitation and extra protection should be afforded those species 
in the form of directed fishery closures or prevention of fishery 
development.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has determined that five species of 
sharks that are highly susceptible to overfishing should be excluded 
from directed fishing to prevent overfishing and to prevent development 
of commercial and/or recreational fisheries. The whale shark (Rhincodon 
typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), sand tiger shark 
(Odontaspis taurus), bigeye sand tiger shark (Odontaspis noronhai), and 
white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), are removed from the large 
coastal species group and are reclassified as prohibited species. These 
species are either encountered very rarely in commercial shark 
fisheries or are not landed because they are not marketable. Therefore, 
this action is a preventative measure to ensure that overfishing of 
these species does not occur. In order to continue scientific research 
on these species, previously issued provisions that allow for 
scientific research activity and exempted fishing apply (61 FR 26435, 
May 28, 1996).

6. White Shark Recreational Catch-and-Release Only Fishery

    Numerous members of Congress, regional fishery management councils, 
states, conservation organizations, scientific associations, and 
recreational fishing associations support the proposed prohibitions on 
directed fishing for, landing of, or sale of white sharks. Several 
recreational fishing associations and commercial fishermen's 
associations oppose the prohibition. One conservation organization 
commented that the catch-and-release program may cause increased 
mortality. Numerous scientists expressed concern that a prohibition on 
landing would adversely affect ongoing research on white sharks.
    Comment: The white shark is especially vulnerable to overfishing 
and since no directed commercial fishery exists at this time, 
prohibited status should be afforded this species to prevent a directed 
fishery from developing.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The white shark is relatively rare in 
commercial landings data and very little is known of its reproductive 
biology and potential. Some evidence suggests that white sharks may 
practice uterine cannibalism, like sand tiger sharks, and may be highly 
susceptible to overfishing. NMFS believes that the white shark deserves 
special protection but acknowledges that there is, in parts of their 
range, an active recreational fishery for the white shark. Therefore, 
NMFS removes the white shark from the large coastal species group, 
making it a commercially prohibited species, and restricts fishing for 
white sharks to recreational catch-and-release only. This action will 
prevent a directed fishery from developing, thereby preventing 
overfishing, while still allowing traditional recreational fishing to 
continue. Similar to other prohibitions, previously issued provisions 
that allow for scientific research activity and exempted fishing apply. 
Additionally, NMFS may consider tagging and reporting requirements for 
the white shark fishery in the future. Those fishermen who wish to tag 
white sharks are encouraged to participate in a NMFS-approved tag-and-
release program. Tags may be obtained from the NMFS Cooperative Tagging 
Program, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, 
Miami, FL, 33149, or the NMFS APEX Predator Investigation Cooperative 
Shark Tagging Program, 28 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882.
    Comment: Catch-and-release fishing for white sharks may cause 
increased mortality.
    Response: NMFS is aware that there is limited information regarding 
post-release survival for white sharks and that there may be some 
mortality associated with a catch-and-release-only fishery. However, it 
is unlikely that mortality would increase from this action because all 
recreationally caught white sharks will be required to be released, 
whereas not all are released now. Therefore, even with some post-
release mortality, the increased release rate should decrease mortality 
overall.

7. Prohibition on Filleting at Sea

    NMFS received general support for the prohibition on filleting 
sharks prior to landing; however, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. 
Small Business

[[Page 16653]]

Administration (SBA) commented that costs would increase.
    Comment: Prohibiting filleting at sea will increase costs to vessel 
owner/operators because they will be required to fillet only once in 
port. Currently, they are allowed to fillet sharks while steaming into 
port, which saves processing time and reduces labor costs.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that costs will likely increase somewhat 
but believes that the benefits of increased species-specific 
identification and verification greatly outweigh those costs. NMFS 
believes that the prohibition is necessary to aid in identification of 
landings by dealers who must report by species. Additionally, NMFS 
believes that many fishermen currently allow processors to fillet their 
sharks such that any increase in costs for the fleet would be 
minimized. NMFS adopts this prohibition without change. Sharks must be 
landed and brought to the point of first landing with the flesh 
attached and the spinal column present. Fishermen may remove the head 
and fins and eviscerate the catch.

8. Species-Specific Identification Requirement

    NMFS generally received support that requiring species-specific 
identification of all sharks landed will improve management. Numerous 
dealers and commercial and recreational fishermen requested information 
on identification of sharks.

9. Other comments.

    Comment: Several commercial shark fishermen, persons involved in 
shark processing, commercial fishermen's associations, and one legal 
representative of shark fishery interests commented that NMFS' 
determination of no significant economic impact was flawed and vastly 
underestimated the impact of a 50 percent quota reduction on all shark 
fishermen. In addition, the SBA issued a letter to NMFS indicating 
their disagreement with the determination. The SBA stated that most, if 
not all, shark fishermen are small businesses that would suffer a 
directly corresponding reduction in gross revenue from a large coastal 
shark quota reduction.
    Response: No evidence is available to NMFS to support the 
assumption that there exists a directed fishery for sharks that 
consists exclusively of specialist shark fishermen who do not harvest 
any other species of fish. NMFS' permit database indicates that 97.7 
percent of shark fishers hold permits for other commercial fishing 
permits from the Southeast Regional Permit Office (SERO), which further 
supports the multi-species nature of the fleet. Even so, the 2.4 
percent who do not hold other SERO permits might hold permits from 
other offices (e.g., Atlantic tunas) or may not be active in the shark 
fishery, although no integrated database exists for cross-comparison. 
Since vessels habitually switch to other fisheries as part of the 
multi-species nature of the fleet, reduction of the time spent in the 
shark fishery will not affect switching cost; switching still occurs 
once or twice a year. In addition, since implementation of the FMP in 
1993, the fishery has only been open for a short period of time 
annually and NMFS believes that few, if any, fishermen are exclusively 
dependent upon income from the large coastal shark fishery. Therefore, 
alternative sources of income have been necessary, either from other 
fisheries or other occupations. While NMFS agrees with SBA that most 
shark vessels are considered small businesses, SBA incorrectly assumes 
that a reduction in large coastal shark quotas will lead to a directly 
corresponding reduction in gross ex-vessel revenues of fishermen.
    Comment: The State of Florida and two conservation organizations 
requested that NMFS prohibit the landing of additional species, namely 
certain rays and sawfish.
    Response: NMFS may investigate the need for affording protection to 
additional species not currently included in the management unit. 
Adjustment of the management unit to include additional species would 
require an FMP amendment.
    Comment: The State of Georgia requested that NMFS place additional 
restrictions on the use of gillnets in the shark fishery.
    Response: Gear restrictions are not currently within the scope of 
the framework authority under the FMP. NMFS intends to amend the FMP to 
address alternative management measures and, at that time, may examine 
the possibility of gear restrictions.
    Comment: Numerous conservation organizations and individuals 
suggested a 100 lb. minimum size for mako sharks.
    Response: NMFS has previously considered a minimum size for mako 
sharks. A minimum size for mako sharks was rejected in the FMP because 
of inadequate supporting biological information. No new analyses have 
been presented to indicate a modification of the current management for 
mako sharks is warranted. NMFS may address possible use of minimum 
sizes for this and other species as part of the long-term rebuilding 
plan.
    Comment: Two conservation organizations commented that quota 
overruns should be subtracted from the following years' quotas.
    Response: This is not currently within the authority of the FMP. 
Current regulations allow for the adjustment between quota periods 
within a single year. NMFS may investigate the need for adjusting 
quotas from year to year during the FMP amendment process.
    Comment: One fishermen's association commented that NMFS must not 
implement retroactive quota reductions.
    Response: This is not a retroactive quota reduction. The proposed 
rule was published on December 20, 1996. The fishing year for the 
Atlantic shark fishery began on January 1, 1997, and the fishery has 
been ongoing while NMFS has considered comments on the proposed rule. 
While this action affects all landings beginning January 1, 1997, it is 
reasonable because quotas have been in place since 1993 and fishery 
participants are cognizant of annual quota adjustments. Additionally, 
NMFS believes that any delay in the implementation of the effective 
date of this action will result in the quota being exceeded for the 
first season and possibly for the second season.
    Other Issues: NMFS was provided with additional data and analyses 
from a fishermen's association for further consideration. The submitted 
data include species composition, nominal catch rate, and standardized 
abundance index information from research surveys conducted by the 
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (the precursor to NMFS), the Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institute, and NMFS during the period 1957-1996. No 
conclusions were presented about the status of sharks. Further, this 
information has not been reviewed or analysed by any other scientists 
so the scientific reliability of the approaches taken to developing the 
depicted trends in catch rates is unknown. Therefore, it is 
inappropriate to use the statistics presented to modify the conclusions 
made in the 1996 SEW final report until such analyses are conducted. 
The commentor concludes that the analysis presented raises questions 
about the reliability of the large coastal shark stock declines 
developed in the 1996 stock assessment. However, the information 
depicted for the standardized abundance index for combined catches of 
sandbar, dusky, silky, and blacktip sharks caught in the western North 
Atlantic Ocean indicates a decline of about 80 percent from 1986-1996, 
with each year's abundance index being less than the previous year's 
abundance index, except in 1992 and

[[Page 16654]]

1994. While these data may raise questions about the magnitude of 
declines in shark populations, as estimated by the 1996 SEW final 
report, they do indicate, consistent with the 1996 SEW final report, a 
substantial decline. Indeed, they may represent an even greater decline 
than that presented in the 1996 SEW final report. In any event, NMFS 
has concluded that they are not sufficient to justify allowing the 
fishery to continue without the recommended reduction in effective 
fishing mortality. The data presented apparently warrant further 
assessment by the scientific community and should be examined for 
possible additional modification to future commercial quotas by the 
scientific community.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

Recreational Bag Limits

    Based on public comments, one management measure has been changed. 
NMFS has determined that a separate bag limit for Atlantic sharpnose 
sharks is warranted for the reason outlined above. Therefore, the 
recreational bag limit is as follows: 2 sharks per vessel per trip, for 
any combination of species except Atlantic sharpnose sharks, which will 
have a bag limit of 2 fish per person per trip.

White shark recreational fishery

    NMFS has changed tag-and-release to catch-and-release-only 
recreational fishing for the white shark. NMFS intends to submit for 
OMB approval a new collection-of-information reporting requirement to 
require that recreational fishing for white sharks operate under a tag-
and-release-only program.

Classification

    The AA has determined that this rule is necessary for the 
conservation and management of shark resources in the Atlantic Ocean 
and is consistent with the national standards and other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. This rule has been 
determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Copies of 
the EA/RIR/FRFA are available (see ADDRESSES). The EA/RIR/FRFA, in 
combination with the SEW Report, constitutes the annual SAFE Report.
    The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the 
Department of Commerce certified at the proposed rule stage to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that 
the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. No Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis was prepared. During the comment period, NMFS received 
comments from the public and SBA that indicated that the proposed rule 
may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. NMFS, in response to the issues raised during the comment 
period, prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to 
ensure a thorough analysis of the impacts.
    In summary, given the multispecies and multigear nature of the 
commercial shark fishery and the existing management regulations that 
control the harvest of sharks, few additional costs are expected to be 
incurred by reducing the size of the directed shark fishery quota. At 
present, the shark fishery for large coastal species lasts only a few 
months twice a year and most, if not all, participants have already had 
to diversify into other fisheries to maintain their financial 
viability. Evidence available to NMFS indicates that it is highly 
unlikely that vessel operators could survive a fishery that lasts a 
total of less than four months a year without alternative sources of 
income, either from other fisheries or other occupations. In addition, 
the permit database indicates that 97.7 percent of permitted shark 
fishers hold other fishing permits from the Southeast Regional Permit 
Office (SERO). Even so, the 2.4 percent who do not hold other SERO 
permits might hold permits from other offices (e.g. Atlantic tunas) or 
may not participate in the Atlantic shark fishery. NMFS estimates that 
a directed shark fisher would earn at most $26,426 in gross revenues - 
not income - from the large coastal shark fishery alone. These revenues 
would be supplemented by income from fishing on other Atlantic sharks 
and other species such as tunas and swordfish. Additionally, nearly all 
Atlantic shark fishers operate in the multispecies longline fishery 
where gear requirements are substantially similar and require only a 
modification to fish at different depths. Since vessels habitually 
access other fisheries, reduction of the time spent in the shark 
fishery will not affect switching cost; the switching still occurs once 
or twice a year. Accordingly, a reduction in large coastal shark quotas 
is highly unlikely to lead to a directly-corresponding reduction in 
gross ex-vessel revenues of fishers. The result is that a reduction in 
quota should have relatively little impact on commercial shark fishing 
firms since the season, even if cut by more than half, would not 
adversely impact other harvesting operations that take up the majority 
of the fishing season.
    Additionally, nearly all Atlantic shark commercial fishers operate 
in the multispecies longline fishery where gear requirements are 
substantially similar and require only a modification to fish at 
different depths. Since vessels habitually access other fisheries, 
reduction of the time spent in the shark fishery will not affect 
switching cost; the switching still occurs once or twice a year. 
Estimates of additional cost to access other fisheries are therefore 
expected to be minimal. The fact remains that most shark fishermen are 
longline operators and that longlines are used to target Atlantic 
tunas, swordfish, and other sharks as well. The other Atlantic sharks, 
i.e. small coastals and pelagic sharks, are subject to quotas which are 
higher than historical catch levels (the pelagic shark fishery has 
never been closed). It should also be noted that, the current trip 
limit for large coastal sharks is designed, in part, to mitigate the 
impact of restrictive quotas on the industry. Trip limits help to 
extend the season, minimize market glut, and thereby maintain higher 
prices.
    NMFS notes that the Atlantic tunas fishery is open access, and that 
with the exception of bluefin tuna, Atlantic tunas are not subject to 
quotas. The Atlantic swordfish fishery is currently open access and 
subject to a quota, although the fishery has not been closed since the 
fall of 1995. There is a proposal being developed to limit access to 
the swordfish fishery, however any current participant with a history 
of swordfish catch will be allowed to land and sell swordfish under the 
rule as proposed. Therefore, displaced fishers could transfer effort to 
the Atlantic tuna, reef fish, or coastal pelagic fisheries for king and 
Spanish mackerel, and potentially to Atlantic swordfish if previous 
participation can be documented.
    The recreational shark fisheries are exploited primarily by private 
boat, charter boat, and head boat based fishers although some shore 
based fishers are active in the fishery in the Florida Keys. The 
restriction of 2 shark per vessel per day could reduce consumer surplus 
generated by a directed recreational shark fishing trip. However, the 
costs of reducing the landings rate should be mitigated by the 2 
Atlantic sharpnose per person per trip exception as well as alternative 
directed recreational fishing trips for other fish species and by 
catch-and-release fishing. In addition, the state territorial seas 
should remain open subject to their respective landings regulations. 
This could cause a reallocation of effort from offshore waters to 
nearshore waters which could increase fishing pressure on juvenile 
stocks. However, major changes in net benefits are not expected for 
recreational fishers.

[[Page 16655]]

    The prohibition of fishing for, landing or sale of whale, basking, 
sand tiger, and bigeye sand tiger sharks will not adversely affect 
gross revenue because whale, basking, and bigeye sand tiger sharks are 
only incidentally encountered in commercial fisheries and sand tiger 
sharks are not a marketable species at this time. The prohibition of 
fishing for, landing or sale of white sharks will not adversely affect 
gross revenue because they are only incidentally encountered in the 
commercial fishery. Requiring the recreational white shark fishery to 
operate under a catch-and-release-only program may reduce the 
willingness of recreational anglers to pay for a fishing trip. The 
prohibition on filleting of sharks at sea will have little economic 
impact but will increase costs to operators through increased labor to 
fillet carcasses once in port.
    In response to comments, NMFS did modify the recreational bag 
limits to allow additional limits for Atlantic sharpnose sharks. It was 
determined that providing this additional allowance would alleviate 
some of the impacts on recreational operations while not negatively 
impacting the resource. NMFS is aware that there may be alternative 
actions that could stabilize or improve the population status of 
sharks. However, the 1996 SEW final report indicated the need for 
immediate reductions in effective fishing mortality. Alternative 
actions, such as minimum sizes and/or nursery and pupping area 
closures, were recommended in general by the 1996 SEW as mechanisms to 
implement the immediate reductions in effective fishing mortality 
required. However, specific area closures or minimum sizes were not 
examined. Further, implementation of such alternative actions would 
require more scientific analyses and coordination with Atlantic states 
and regional fishery management councils, which would delay the 
implementation of fishing mortality reductions beyond the 
recommendation of immediate action. However, NMFS, consistent with 
recent requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is establishing an 
advisory panel that will consider these alternatives and others that 
could be less burdensome and could achieve the appropriate levels of 
fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the shark resource in the 
context of the FMP.
    Further, under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d)(3), NMFS has determined that 
there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date as such 
a delay would be contrary to the public interest. Preliminary 
commercial landings estimates indicate that as of March 15, 1997, 
approximately 740 metric tons dressed weight of large coastal sharks 
had been taken, which is 115 percent of the first semiannual quota of 
642 metric tons dressed weight. If this harvest rate continues, it is 
possible that a significant portion or the entire first semiannual 
quota might be taken prior to the effective date of this action, if 
delayed. Further, the second semiannual quota would have to be 
decreased by the overage in the first semiannual quota, and this could 
adversely affect the northern states if that overage is significant. If 
this authority results in a closure action for the large coastal shark 
fishery, NMFS has the ability to rapidly communicate the closure to 
fishery participants through its FAX network or NOAA weather radio. To 
the extent practicable, advance notice of such closure will be 
provided.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of 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 Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    This rule contains no new collection of information that may be 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act but refers to requirements that 
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control 
Number 0648-0016, 0648-0013, 0648-0205, 0648-0229, and 0648-0306. NMFS 
intends to submit a tagging reporting requirement to OMB for approval.
    The prohibitions section has been reordered to group similar or 
associated prohibitions. In addition, paragraphs are now designated by 
numbers for the purposes of clarification.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 678

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 1, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 678 is amended 
as follows:

PART 678--ATLANTIC SHARKS

    1. The authority citation for part 678 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 678.2, the definitions for ``Dress'', ``Eviscerate'', 
and ``Fillet'' are added; and the definition for ``Management Unit'' is 
amended by removing under paragraph (1), ``Basking sharks--
Cetorhinidae'', ``Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus``; ``Sand tiger 
sharks--Odontaspididae'', ``Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai``, 
``Sand tiger, Odontaspis taurus`` and ``Whale sharks--Rhincodontidae'', 
``Whale shark, Rhincodon typus``, and by adding a new paragraph (4) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 678.2  Definitions

* * * * *
    Dress means to remove head, viscera, and fins, but does not include 
removal of the backbone, halving, quartering, or otherwise further 
reducing the carcass.
* * * * *
    Eviscerate means removal of the alimentary organs only.
    Fillet means to remove slices of fish flesh, of irregular size and 
shape, from the carcass by cuts made parallel to the backbone.
* * * * *
    Management Unit * * *
    (4) Prohibited species:
    Basking sharks - Cetorhinidae
    Basking shark - Cetorhinidae maximus
    Mackerel sharks - Lamnidae
    White shark - Carcharodon carcharias
    Sand tiger sharks - Odontaspididae
    Bigeye sand tiger - Odontaspis noronhai
    Sand tiger - Odontaspis taurus
    Whale sharks - Rhincodontidae
    Whale shark - Rhincodon typus
* * * * *


Sec. 678.5  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 678.5, in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) after ``market 
category'' add ``, and species,''.
    4. Section 678.7 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 678.7  Prohibitions.

    (a) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec. 620.7 
of this chapter, and except as permitted under Sec. 678.29, it is 
unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
    (1) Fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or possess or attempt to 
fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or possess the following prohibited 
species:
    Basking sharks-Cetorhinidae
    Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus
    Mackerel sharks-Lamnidae
    White sharks-Carcharodon carcharias
    Sand tiger sharks-Odontaspididae
    Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai
    Sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus
    Whale sharks-Rhincodontidae
    Whale shark, Rhincodon typus
    (2) Sell shark from the management unit or be exempt from the bag 
limits without a vessel permit as specified in Sec. 678.4(a)(1).

[[Page 16656]]

    (3) Purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to purchase, trade, or 
barter, a shark from the management unit without an annual dealer 
permit, as specified in Sec. 678.4(a)(2).
    (4) Falsify information required in Sec. 678.4(b) and (c) on an 
application for a permit.
    (5) Fail to display a permit, as specified in Sec. 678.4(h).
    (6) Falsify or fail to provide information required to be 
maintained, submitted, or reported, as specified in Sec. 678.5.
    (7) Fail to make a shark available for inspection or provide data 
on catch and effort, as required by Sec. 678.5(d).
    (8) Falsify or fail to display and maintain vessel identification, 
as required by Sec. 678.6.
    (9) Falsify or fail to provide requested information regarding a 
vessel's trip, as specified in Sec. 678.10(a).
    (10) Fail to embark an observer on a trip when selected, as 
specified in Sec. 678.10(b).
    (11) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, harass, intimidate, or 
interfere with a NMFS-approved observer aboard a vessel or prohibit or 
bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, or refusal of reasonable 
assistance, an observer from conducting his/her duties aboard a vessel.
    (12) Fail to provide an observer with the required food, 
accommodations, access, and assistance, as specified in Sec. 678.10(c).
    (13) Remove the fins from a shark and discard the remainder, as 
specified in Sec. 678.22 (a)(1).
    (14) Possess shark fins, carcasses, or parts on board, or offload 
shark fins from, a fishing vessel, except as specified in Sec. 678.22, 
or possess shark carcasses or parts on board, or offload shark fins, 
carcasses, or parts from, a vessel, except as specified in 
Sec. 678.22(a)(2) and (3).
    (15) Fail to release a shark that will not be retained in the 
manner specified in Sec. 678.22(b).
    (16) Land, or possess on any trip, shark in excess of the vessel 
trip limit, as specified in Sec. 678.22(c)(1).
    (17) Transfer a shark at sea, as specified in Secs. 678.22(c)(2) 
and 678.23(e).
    (18) Fillet a shark at sea, as specified in Sec. 678.22(d), except 
that sharks may be eviscerated and the head and fins may be removed.
    (19) Exceed the bag limits, as specified in Sec. 678.23 (a) through 
(c), or operate a vessel with a shark on board in excess of the bag 
limits, as specified in Sec. 678.23(d).
    (20) Sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, trade, or barter, 
a shark harvested in the EEZ, except as an owner or operator of a 
vessel with a permit, as specified in Sec. 678.25(a), or sell, trade, 
or barter, or attempt to sell, trade or barter, a shark from the 
management unit, except as an owner or operator of a vessel with a 
permit, as specified in Sec. 678.26.
    (21) Purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to purchase, trade or 
barter, shark meat or fins from the management unit from an owner or 
operator of a vessel that does not possess a vessel permit, as 
specified in Sec. 678.26(b); or sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to 
sell, trade, or barter, a shark from the management unit, except to a 
permitted dealer, as specified in Sec. 678.26(d).
    (22) Sell, purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, 
purchase, trade, or barter, shark fins that are disproportionate to the 
weight of carcasses landed, as specified in Sec. 678.26(c).
    (23) Interfere with, obstruct, delay, or prevent by any means an 
investigation, search, seizure, or disposition of seized property in 
connection with enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    (24) During a closure for a shark species group, retain a shark of 
that species group on board a vessel that has been issued a permit 
under Sec. 678.4, except as provided in Sec. 678.24(a), or sell, 
purchase, trade, or barter or attempt to sell, purchase, trade, or 
barter a shark of that species group, as specified in Sec. 678.24.
    (25) Fish for sharks with a drift gillnet that is 2.5 km or more in 
length or possess a shark aboard a vessel possessing such drift 
gillnet, as specified in Sec. 678.21.
    (b) [Reserved]
    5. In Sec. 678.22, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 678.22  Harvest limitations.

* * * * *
    (d) Filleting. (1) A shark from any of the three management units 
that is possessed in the EEZ, or harvested by a vessel that has been 
issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 678.4, may not be filleted at sea. 
Sharks may be eviscerated and the head and fins may be removed.
    6. In Sec. 678.23, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 678.23  Bag limits.

* * * * *
    (b) Large coastal, small coastal and pelagic species, combined--2 
per vessel per trip.
    (c) Atlantic sharpnose shark--2 per person per trip.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec. 678.24, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 678.24  Commercial quotas.

* * * * *
    (b) Semiannual. The following commercial quotas apply:
    (1) For the period January 1 through June 30:
    (i) Large coastal species--642 metric tons, dressed weight.
    (ii) Small coastal species--880 metric tons, dressed weight.
    (iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons, dressed weight.
    (2) For the period July 1 through December 31:
    (i) Large coastal species--642 metric tons, dressed weight.
    (ii) Small coastal species--880 metric tons, dressed weight.
    (iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons, dressed weight.
* * * * *
    8. Section 678.29 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 678.29  Catch-and-release program.

    (a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, a person may 
fish for, but not retain, white sharks with rod and reel only under a 
catch and release program, provided the person releases and returns 
such fish to the sea immediately with a minimum of injury.
    (b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 97-8754 Filed 4-2-97; 8:53 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F