[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5633-5642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2011]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 635

[Docket No. 060313062-7010-02; I.D. 082305E]
RIN 0648-AT37


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark 
Management Measures; Gear Operation and Deployment; Complementary 
Closures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule will implement additional handling, release, 
and disentanglement requirements for sea turtles and other non-target 
species caught in the commercial shark bottom longline (BLL) fishery. 
These requirements increase the amount of handling, release, and 
disentanglement gear that are required to be on BLL vessels and are 
intended to reduce post hooking mortality of sea turtles and other non-
target species consistent with the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This final rule will also implement 
management measures, consistent with those recommended by the Caribbean 
Fishery Management Council (CFMC) and implemented by NMFS on October 
28, 2005, that prohibit vessels issued HMS permits with BLL gear 
onboard from fishing in six distinct areas off the U.S. Virgin Islands 
and Puerto Rico, year-round. These six closures are intended to 
minimize adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for reef-
dwelling species.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Final EA/RIR/FRFA) 
can be obtained from LeAnn S. Hogan, Highly Migratory Species 
Management Division at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

[[Page 5634]]

Other related documents including copies of the document entitled 
``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with Minimal 
Injury'' may be obtained from the mailing address listed above, and are 
also available on the internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms. 
Copies of the documents supporting the actions contained in the 
Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. 
Caribbean may be obtained by contacting Steve Branstetter, Southeast 
Regional Office, 263 13\th\ Ave. South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; 
telephone 727-824-5305.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LeAnn S. Hogan or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 
by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). The HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 
635. The fisheries for spiny lobster, queen conch, reef fish, and 
corals and reef-associated invertebrates in the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ) off Puerto Rico and off the U.S. Virgin Islands are managed under 
fishery management plans prepared by the CFMC. These fishery management 
plans are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Background

    On March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15680), NMFS published a rule that 
proposed certain dehooking equipment be on vessels with shark BLL gear 
on board. Additionally, the rule proposed closing certain areas in the 
Caribbean to vessels with shark BLL gear on board. NMFS examined 
several alternatives, the details of which are outlined in the proposed 
rule and are not repeated here.
    As noted in the proposed rule, an objective of the 2003 final rule 
(December 24 2003; 68 FR 74746) implementing Amendment 1 to the FMP for 
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, was to minimize, to the extent 
practicable, bycatch of living marine resources and the mortality of 
such bycatch that cannot be avoided in the fisheries for Atlantic 
sharks. The rule implementing Amendment 1 finalized measures that 
required the use of non-stainless steel, corrodible hooks aboard shark 
BLL fishing vessels, the possession of release equipment (line cutters 
and dipnets, both with extended reach handles), and also required BLL 
vessels to immediately release any sea turtle, marine mammal, or 
smalltooth sawfish that is hooked or entangled and then move at least 
one nautical mile (2 km) before resuming fishing activities. At that 
time, NMFS had not yet approved dehooking devices for sea turtles. 
Therefore, implementation of the measure was delayed pending approval.
    The purpose of this today's final rulemaking is to update the 
necessary equipment and protocols that vessel operators in the BLL 
fishery must possess, maintain, and utilize for the safe handling, 
release, and disentanglement of sea turtles and other non-target 
species. Significant new information, techniques, and equipment have 
been approved and implemented for the pelagic longline (PLL) fishery 
since NMFS enacted the dehooking requirements for the BLL fishery. 
Participants in the PLL fishery are required to possess, maintain, and 
utilize a suite of NMFS-approved handling and dehooking equipment when 
engaged in fishing activities (July 6, 2004; 69 FR 40734). Research 
conducted in the Northeast Distant statistical reporting area (NED) has 
indicated that removing the maximum amount of gear from sea turtles 
significantly increases post-release survival. Dehooking devices that 
meet NMFS design standards are necessary for removal of fishing gear 
and are now available to release sea turtles.
    Another objective of this final rule is to implement measures that 
are complementary to CFMC-recommended measures that NMFS implemented on 
October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073). These measures will prohibit vessels 
issued HMS permits with BLL gear onboard from fishing in six distinct 
areas off the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, year-round. These 
six closures should minimize adverse impacts to EFH and reduce fishing 
mortality for mutton snapper, red hind, and other reef-dwelling 
species. Scoping hearings for the Comprehensive Amendment to the FMPs 
of the Caribbean, including the BLL closures in this rulemaking, were 
conducted from June 4 - 12, 2002, in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of 
availability (NOA) of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Assessment (DSEIS) in the Federal Register on March 18, 2005 (70 FR 
13190). The final supplemental environmental impact statement for the 
Comprehensive Amendment to the FMPs of the Caribbean was filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency on June 17, 2005, with the NOA 
published on June 24, 2005 (70 FR 36581). Based on recent guidance NMFS 
hopes to publish a proposed rule on equipment that would allow the 
dehooking of smalltooth sawfish.

Response to Comments

    The public comment period for the proposed rule (March 29, 2006; 71 
FR 15680) was open from March 29 to June 27, 2006. During that time, 
NMFS held five public hearings and received several written comments. A 
summary of the major comments received, along with NMFS response, is 
provided below.
    Comment 1: Several commenters urged NMFS to mandate training in sea 
turtle handling techniques for all BLL fishermen by requiring them to 
attend workshops similar to those for PLL; BLL fishermen should carry 
``Careful Release Protocols for Release with Minimal Injury'' onboard 
but this is not a substitute for hands on training; NMFS should 
consider whether sea turtle resuscitation techniques similar to those 
used for sea turtles caught by vessels fishing for shrimp are 
appropriate for BLL; all BLL vessel owners, operators, and observers 
(and as many crew as possible) should attend a certification level 
workshop in order to achieve the same level of proficiency as the 
Northeast Distant (NED) experiment; NMFS must be sensitive to fishing 
schedules when scheduling workshops; and NMFS might consider having a 
sticker on vessels whose owners/operators have completed the safe 
handling and release workshops; and NMFS could accelerate the learning 
process by educating the recreational sector about these protocols for 
reducing post release mortality of various sea life.
    Response: NMFS agrees that hands-on training on safe handling and 
release protocols for sea turtles and other protected resources is 
invaluable. The Final Consolidated HMS FMP and its final rule (October 
2, 2006; 71 FR 58058) require all PLL and BLL longline and shark 
gillnet vessel owners and operators to attend, and successfully 
complete, workshops on the safe handling and release of protected 
resources before renewing their permit in 2007. While participants in 
other HMS fisheries, including HMS Angling and Charter/headboats (CHB) 
categories are not required to attend, the Agency is encouraging their 
participation to better understand the materials and protocols 
available for reducing post-hooking mortality of protected species and 
other non-target catch. Additional information on the safe handling and 
release workshops can be found in the Consolidated HMS FMP. Workshop 
schedules can be found on the HMS website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

[[Page 5635]]

sfa/hms/workshops/index.htm. Currently, all participants in the 
Atlantic BLL and PLL fisheries are required to follow resuscitation 
requirements as stated in Sec.  223.206(d)(1). These requirements would 
not change as a result of this rulemaking.
    Comment 2: Several comments were received relating to observer 
coverage in HMS fisheries, including: increase observer coverage to at 
least 10 percent; estimates of take and mortality in the PLL fishery 
have been underestimated; turtles caught on BLL are more susceptible to 
drowning; are observers put on boats from Virginia northward or Panama 
City westward?; the extrapolated takes that create the Incidental Take 
Statement (ITS) seem too high, especially for smalltooth sawfish that 
occur in a small portion of the Atlantic; the number of takes reported 
by the observer program has been questioned in the past; why not show 
the observed number of takes rather than the extrapolated numbers?
    Response: Currently, the Agency maintains observer coverage levels 
that are consistent with the National Bycatch Report and in compliance 
with the 2003 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the shark fisheries. 
Vessels are randomly selected for observer coverage based on region, 
recent landings, recent selection for observer coverage, and whether 
they have a valid HMS permit. From 1994 through 2001, the shark BLL 
observer program was a voluntary program and the observers only went on 
vessels that agreed to take them. Thus, the data for this time period 
was not based on a random selection process and did not cover the 
entire range of the fishery. However, it did cover vessels operating in 
the major fishing grounds off Florida and North Carolina. In 2002, the 
observer program became mandatory, with vessels selected randomly 
across areas based on historic participation patterns. Therefore, 
vessels in all regions, including those from Virginia northward and 
from Panama City, FL, westward, are required to carry an observer, if 
selected. The Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for smalltooth sawfish 
and sea turtles was determined by the NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources during the 2003 consultation in conjunction with measures 
contained in Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and 
Shark (December 24, 2003; 68 FR 74746). The ITS for shark fisheries was 
based on the extrapolated takes including associated mortalities for 
the BLL and gillnet fishery. Extrapolated takes were determined based 
on interaction rates reported in the BLL observer data from 1994 
through 2002 in relation to fishing effort data (i.e., number of hooks) 
based on data from the Coastal Fisheries logbook (Gulf of Mexico reef 
fish, South Atlantic snapper-grouper, king and Spanish mackerel, and 
shark logbook) and HMS logbook for trips that reported using BLL gear 
and landing sharks.
    Comment 3: Nesting declines identified in the northern sub-
population of loggerhead sea turtles are alarming; western Atlantic 
loggerhead sea turtles are in clear decline; the southern loggerhead 
sea turtle nesting subpopulation has declined 29 percent in last 17 
years; green and leatherback sea turtle nesting has been increasing 
dramatically since 1989; and fisheries in the western and eastern 
Atlantic appear to have a significant impact on Florida's nesting 
loggerhead sea turtles.
    Response: NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share 
responsibility for threatened and endangered sea turtles. In general, 
marine-related activities, such as fishing, are within the purview of 
NMFS, whereas, terrestrial activities are within the purview of USFWS. 
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that federal agencies ensure 
that the actions that they authorize, fund, or conduct do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of these species. Recovery plans 
including terrestrial and marine issues for leatherback and loggerhead 
sea turtles have been in place for several years. The BiOp issued in 
October 2003 found that Atlantic shark BLL fisheries are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species of sea turtles under 
NMFS' purview, however, incidental takes of sea turtles (primarily 
loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles) are anticipated. Finally, the 
measures selected in this final rule are expected to reduce the post-
hooking mortality of sea turtles that are hooked or entangled in the 
BLL fishery for Atlantic sharks by requiring participants to possess, 
maintain, and utilize the necessary equipment to remove as much gear as 
possible from sea turtles to enhance their post-hooking survival and 
recovery rates.
    Comment 4: NMFS received a variety of comments in support of the 
preferred alternative for gear deployment and operation and some of the 
benefits of using the dehooking equipment. The comments included: the 
Agency must also provide an incentive to use the dehooking gear; this 
equipment was originally designed in the shark fishery; vessels will 
save time re-rigging and costs by retrieving the hooks with the 
handling and release equipment; fishermen in Ecuador have been using 
the dehooking equipment to retrieve hooks which saves them money; and 
we support all technology that is developed in collaboration with 
industry.
    Response: NMFS agrees that using the dehooking gear can be 
beneficial to both the fisherman in terms of saved hooks and sea 
turtles. The selected alternative for gear deployment maintains 
consistency between the requirements for safe handling, release, and 
disentanglement of sea turtles and other protected resources caught in 
Atlantic PLL and BLL fisheries. This equipment was developed in 
collaboration with the PLL industry. Updating the requirements for the 
Atlantic shark BLL fishery is necessary to reduce the post-hooking 
mortality of sea turtles while increasing the likelihood that the ITS 
for this fishery is not exceeded in the future. Incentives for 
fishermen to use the dehooking equipment include, but are not limited 
to, improving the ability of fishermen to retrieve hooks and fishing 
equipment, which may result in less time spent re-rigging and/or 
reduced expenditures for hooks.
    Comment 5: NMFS received several comments about the estimated costs 
of procuring the required dehooking equipment, both to individuals and 
to the shark BLL industry as a whole, including: NMFS should emphasize 
that BLL operators could reduce costs of required equipment under the 
preferred alternative by making most of the equipment themselves; a 
significant portion of the 284 vessels referred to in the draft EA 
already have PLL permits and already have the equipment, therefore the 
estimated economic impact associated with the preferred alternative of 
$71,900 to $138,400 seems high.
    Response: NMFS has stated that BLL operators may construct any of 
the dehooking equipment required by this rule themselves as long as the 
equipment meets the design standards at 50 CFR 635.21. NMFS also 
assumes that numerous participants already possess some of the 
equipment required by this rulemaking, including: bolt cutters, 
monofilament line cutters, needle nose pliers, standard automobile tire 
or other comparable surface for immobilizing and elevating turtles, 
certain mouth gags (nylabone, hank of rope, piece of PVC), and a boat 
hook or gaff for pulling an inverted ``V'' on entangled turtles, 
thereby minimizing the economic impacts of compliance with this 
rulemaking. NMFS derived the estimate of 284 vessel owners that could 
potentially be impacted by this rulemaking from the 555 directed and 
incidental shark permit holders that possessed permits in April 2006. 
Of those vessels, 284 did not have a

[[Page 5636]]

directed or incidental swordfish permit. An incidental or directed 
swordfish permit would be necessary to fish with PLL gear, and those 
permitted vessels would already be required to possess, maintain, and 
utilize the equipment and protocols prescribed in this rulemaking. NMFS 
agrees that this may be an overestimate, as it does not account for 
latent effort in BLL and PLL fisheries. However, inactivity in the 
recent past would not exempt permit holders from the need to procure 
the required equipment before fishing in the future.
    Comment 6: NMFS received several comments about the current 
requirements for dehooking equipment in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery, 
including: all BLL vessels should already have line cutters, dipnets, 
bolt cutters, hank of rope, and a wooden brush; NMFS' estimates of 
costs for the various alternative (high and low end costs) assume that 
all, or most of the vessels under and over 4 ft have not been in 
compliance with Amendment 1 (required dipnet and line cutters); are BLL 
vessels currently required to carry a dipnet?; and many BLL vessel 
operators do not know about the dipnet requirement.
    Response: The cost estimates that NMFS provided in the draft 
Environmental Assessment (EA) and proposed rule (March, 29, 2006; 71 FR 
15680) assumed that all vessels in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery are 
in compliance with the current equipment requirements for that fishery, 
which include possession of a long-handled dipnet and linecutter. Costs 
of compliance included a low-end and a high-end estimate for complying 
with the range of alternatives considered for this rulemaking. For the 
preferred alternative, these estimates were between $253.25 and $977.30 
and may vary depending on the vessel's freeboard height, what equipment 
the vessel operator already possesses, whether or not the operators 
choose to construct some of the materials themselves, and where 
operators acquire their equipment. The current requirement to possess 
long-handled dipnets and linecutters for release and disentanglement of 
sea turtles was included in Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 24, 
2003; 68 FR 74746).
    Comment 7: NMFS received a variety of comments related to bycatch, 
National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and dehooking 
requirements in other HMS-managed fisheries, including: according to 
National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must reduce 
bycatch, but if NMFS cannot reduce bycatch, it must reduce the 
mortality of bycatch; the recreational sector cannot reduce bycatch so 
they must reduce the mortality of bycatch, thus, the recreational 
sector should have the same requirements put on them regarding safe 
handling and release of protected species as does the commercial 
sector; there may be significant interactions with protected species 
and recreational shark anglers and in the Charter Headboat (CHB) 
industry; a precautionary/pro-active approach would require the use of 
comparable handling and release technologies within the recreational 
hook and line fishery as is required for the commercial PLL and BLL 
sectors; all commercial fisheries (vertical line, CHB, and tournaments) 
should be required to utilize the same safe handling and release 
equipment -- all these fisheries have post-release mortality issues 
that could be solved with the equipment; the recreational sector is by 
far the largest user group; technology is being transferred from one 
gear sector to another (PLL to BLL and CHB) and that is the way it 
should be; as owners, operators, and mates become more proficient at 
using careful handling and release equipment, they will be safely 
releasing numerous other non-targeted species and protected resources 
with the same sea turtle release equipment, which will benefit the 
conservation efforts of many other fisheries.
    Response: The requirements to possess, maintain, and utilize 
additional dehooking, disentanglement, and safe release equipment were 
not analyzed for fisheries outside of the Atlantic shark BLL fishery in 
this rulemaking. The Agency is aware of interactions with sea turtles 
and other protected resources that may occur outside of the Atlantic 
shark BLL fishery, including recreational rod and reel fisheries. 
However, the Agency does not have specific data on interaction rates in 
these fisheries as they have not been historically selected for 
observer coverage or required to submit logbooks. While the workshops 
required by the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP are only required for vessel 
owners and operators in the HMS longline and gillnet fisheries, 
participants in other HMS fisheries (HMS Angling, Charter Headboat, and 
General Category) are also encouraged to attend these workshops as 
their participation will enhance their understanding of the materials 
and protocols available for reducing post-hooking mortality of 
protected species and other non-target catch.
    Comment 8: NMFS received comments regarding the role of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), including: these are two 
management entities that are designed to protect U.S. fishermen; we 
need to sustain U.S. quotas; we cannot transfer handling and release 
technologies if the United States has no quota; the U.S. fishermen have 
been environmentally friendly at the expense of their quotas; and most 
sea turtle bycatch occurs internationally, and why do other countries 
take sea turtles while the United States does not?
    Response: NMFS agrees that the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ICCAT are 
designed to protect fisheries resources and their participants that 
depend on these resources. This rulemaking did not consider any 
alternatives that would affect U.S. quotas of any species, ICCAT-
managed or otherwise. Currently, sharks are not managed by specific 
total allowable catches (TAC) or quotas implemented by ICCAT. The 
dehooking, disentanglement, and release requirements specified in the 
selected alternative are being implemented to comply with the October 
2003 BiOp and to maintain consistency among HMS longline fisheries.
    Comment 9: NMFS received a comment stating that new handling and 
release requirements should be considered when future BiOps and ITSs 
are established.
    Response: Any existing regulations that may affect the post-hooking 
survival of sea turtles or other threatened and endangered species will 
likely be considered in future interagency consultations (i.e., Section 
7 of the ESA) on the Atlantic shark BLL fishery as well as other HMS 
fisheries.
    Comment 10: NMFS received a comment asking where the information on 
turtle takes in the BLL fishery comes from.
    Response: The ITS is established during a Section 7 consultation 
with the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. The data used to determine 
the extrapolated takes and ITS for the BLL fishery are outlined in the 
response to Comment 2. These limits represent the number of total 
estimated takes, based on extrapolated observed takes. The October 2003 
BiOp considered each gear type (gillnet and BLL) independently. If the 
actual calculated incidental captures or mortalities exceed the amount 
estimated for a gear type, the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 
must immediately reinitiate consultation with the NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources for that gear type.
    Comment 11: NMFS received several comments related to the 
complementary management measures for the Caribbean

[[Page 5637]]

region, including: why are Caribbean BLL closures lumped into this 
rule?; Does NMFS regulate the Caribbean?; and does Puerto Rico have a 
200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and does this rule affect them?
    Response: In addition to the dehooking, handling, and release 
requirements for Atlantic shark BLL fisheries, this rulemaking would 
also implement complementary measures per the request of the CFMC. 
These measures would prohibit all vessels that have been issued HMS 
permits with BLL gear onboard from fishing with, or deploying, any 
fishing gear in six distinct areas off the U.S. Virgin Islands and 
Puerto Rico, year-round, to protect EFH of reef-dwelling fish species. 
The final rule that implemented similar measures for fisheries managed 
by the CFMC was published on October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073). These 
measures are being included in this rulemaking because they are germane 
to the Atlantic shark BLL fishery. However, the impacts associated with 
these measures are not expected to be significant as there is only one 
documented commercial shark permit in the Caribbean region. NMFS, in 
cooperation with the CFMC, regulates Federal fisheries off the coasts 
of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands because they are U.S. 
territories. This rule would affect Puerto Rico in the U.S. EEZ beyond 
the limit of their coastal waters, which extend out to 9 miles.
    Comment 12: NMFS received comments on the protocols for vessel 
operators if they interact with a marine mammal or sea turtle, 
including: if you interact with a marine mammal, can you just move the 
animal one mile instead of the vessel? and if a sea turtle is comatose, 
is it still necessary to relocate the animal one mile?
    Response: If vessel operators interact with a marine mammal, 
smalltooth sawfish or a sea turtle, Federal regulations at 50 CFR 
635.21(d)(2), require them to immediately release the animal, retrieve 
the BLL gear, and move at least 1 nautical mile (2 km) from the 
location of the incident before resuming fishing. Reports of marine 
mammal entanglements must be submitted to NMFS consistent with the 
regulations in 50 CFR 229.6. It is important to note that the vessel 
should move 1 nautical mile (2 km) before resuming fishing, rather than 
moving the animal. Comatose sea turtles must be resuscitated according 
to the regulations at 50 CFR 223.206. Once sea turtles are revived, 
they must be released over the stern of the boat, only when fishing or 
scientific collection gear is not in use, when the engine gears are in 
neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to be recaptured 
or injured by vessels.
    Comment 13: Is NMFS going to subsidize or pay for the purchase of 
dehooking equipment?
    Response: NMFS does not have any plans to subsidize the purchase of 
dehooking equipment for participants in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery. 
The costs of compliance with this rulemaking can be minimized by 
fishermen making some of the required equipment themselves, provided it 
meets the design standards in 50 CFR 635.21 and outlined in Appendix A 
of the EA for this rulemaking.
    Comment 14: NMFS received a comment about consistency between the 
dehooking regulations proposed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
Council (GOMFMC) in Amendment 18A to the Reef Fish Fishery Management 
Plan (August 9, 2006; 71 FR 45428), which would update the dehooking 
requirements for commercial Atlantic shark fishermen deploying BLL 
gear. The commenter noted that the requirements were different while 
they should be the same.
    Response: NMFS is aware of the final rule updating handling and 
dehooking requirements for sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish in 
compliance with a BiOp issued in conjunction with Amendment 18A of the 
Reef Fish FMP (August 9, 2006; 71 FR 45428). There are some differences 
in the dehooking equipment that are required per the regulations for 
Amendment 18A of the Reef Fish FMP, compared to the requirements 
selected in this rulemaking. The measures selected in this action were 
designed to maintain compliance with the October 2003 BiOp that was 
issued in conjunction with Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, 
Swordfish and Sharks and to maintain consistency with regulations that 
are currently in effect for the HMS PLL fishery. There are numerous 
individuals who deploy both BLL and PLL often on the same trip, 
targeting different species. Therefore, it seems prudent to maintain 
the same requirements for all HMS-managed longline fisheries regardless 
of what other fisheries management entities are implementing. All 
vessels that possess a commercial HMS shark permit would be required to 
abide by the regulations selected in this rulemaking when BLL gear is 
onboard, despite the fact that they may possess additional permits for 
fisheries conducted in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, if BLL 
fishermen fulfill the regulations selected in this rulemaking, they 
would also be compliant with the final dehooking measures for Amendment 
18A.
    Comment 15: NMFS received several comments seeking clarification as 
to how the preferred alternative, which would require Atlantic shark 
fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize 
additional safe handling and release equipment consistent with the 
requirements for the PLL fishery and comply with handling and release 
guidelines, differs from alternative 2, which would require Atlantic 
shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize 
additional equipment for the safe handling, release, and 
disentanglement of sea turtles, marine mammals, smalltooth sawfish, and 
other bycatch dependent on the vessels' freeboard height. Additionally, 
the following comments were received regarding the preferred 
alternative, including: would everyone be required to possess a six 
foot or longer dehooker under the preferred alternative?; since the 
preferred alternative would require the same safe handling and 
dehooking protocols for the BLL fishery as the PLL fishery, there 
should not be any enforceability issues; and the definition of 
freeboard height may result in some enforcement issues.
    Response: The selected alternative would require all HMS permit 
holders with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize the 
same equipment and protocols required in the PLL fishery. Required 
equipment includes: long-handled dehookers for ingested and external 
hooks, a long-handled device to pull an inverted ``V'', long-handled 
dipnet, short-handled dehooker for ingested and external hooks, bolt 
cutter, monofilament line cutter, needle nose pliers, standard 
automobile tire (or comparable cushioned elevated surface), two types 
of mouth openers/gags, and the Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle 
Release with Minimal Injury (SEFSC-524). Under the selected 
alternative, all long-handled equipment must be a minimum of 6 feet 
(1.82 m) in length or 150 percent of freeboard height. The primary 
difference between the selected alternative and non-preferred 
alternative 2, is that alternative 2 would require vessels to possess, 
maintain, and utilize additional long-handled equipment dependent on 
the vessels' freeboard height. Vessels with a freeboard height of 4 
feet (1.22 m) or less would not be required to possess, maintain, and 
utilize the long-handled dehookers for ingested and external hooks or 
the long-handled device to pull an inverted ``V'' but would be required 
to have the rest of the dehooking equipment onboard. Vessels with a 
freeboard height greater

[[Page 5638]]

than 4 feet (1.22 m) would be required to possess the same equipment as 
required in the preferred alternative, however, the long-handled 
equipment that they are required to possess would only have to be 6 
feet in length and not 150 percent of the freeboard height.
    Comment 16: NMFS received a comment asking whether all of the data 
used for the analysis for this rule was taken from BLL boats.
    Response: The data employed for this rule was attained from both 
the Atlantic shark BLL fishery and the PLL fishery. NMFS used the best 
available data for this rulemaking. These data included the number of 
HMS permits and location of HMS permit holders as of October 2005, 
commercial landings from the 2004 Coastal Fisheries logbooks, ex-vessel 
prices for shark products as of 2003, and extrapolated estimates from 
observer data are from 1994 [dash] 2002.
    Comment 17: The biggest killers of sea turtles are shrimp boats 
operating within 15 miles of the U.S. coast. The turtles bounce through 
several Turtle Exclusion Devices (TED) and become disoriented and 
lethargic afterwards.
    Response: NMFS is aware of sea turtle interactions in the shrimp 
fishery. The annual anticipated incidental take levels are much greater 
in the shrimp fishery than both BLL and PLL fisheries. The shrimp 
fishery operates within the confines of their specific BiOp, and turtle 
takes in that fishery are outside the objectives of this rulemaking.
    Comment 18: A lot of people did not show up at this hearing because 
they went through a voluntary BLL dehooking workshop last year in 
Madeira Beach with Charlie Bergmann.
    Response: The NMFS Point Of Contact for safe handling, release, and 
disentanglement, held nine voluntary workshops in 2005 (May 20, 2005; 
70 FR 29285) for participants in the BLL fishery to become more adept 
at sea turtle handling release and disentanglement protocols. NMFS 
commends those fishermen who attended the voluntary BLL handling, 
release, and disentanglement workshops. However, the public hearings 
for this proposed rule served a different purpose - it provided a forum 
for NMFS to explain and obtain important input from fishermen and other 
constituents regarding management measures that the Agency was 
considering regarding commercial Atlantic shark fishery management. 
This rulemaking will implement the handling, release, and 
disentanglement requirements for the Atlantic shark BLL fishery that 
had previously been voluntary. NMFS attempts to schedule public 
meetings at times that are conducive to constituent participation and 
sends out notices in addition to publishing FR notices that announce 
the time and place of hearings. In addition, NMFS informs key points of 
contacts and HMS Advisory Panel members in each region to announce the 
time and place of hearings in those regions. However, the Agency is 
interested in getting feedback from constituents regarding outreach and 
how it can better inform participants about the rulemaking process 
pending changes in their fisheries.
    Comment 19: A six foot handle length should be a minimum for all 
long-handled equipment.
    Response: The preferred alternative would require that all long-
handled equipment be 6 feet (1.82 m) or 150 percent of the vessel's 
freeboard height.
    Comment 20: I fished off Cape Canaveral for years and never heard 
of a turtle being caught on BLL gear. Hooking sea turtles is what leads 
to time/area closures.
    Response: Interactions between sea turtles and BLL gear are 
sporadic and dependent upon time of year, oceanographic conditions, 
fishing techniques, and other factors. Reducing sea turtle bycatch and 
bycatch mortality is important to maintain compliance with the ESA and 
relevant BiOps. Interaction rates with sea turtles are one of many 
considerations for implementing additional time/area closures as a 
fishery management tool; however, as was done with the rulemaking that 
established dehooking and safe handling techniques for the PLL fishery 
(July 6, 2004; 69 FR 40734), NMFS seeks alternative management measures 
to time/area closures to decrease interactions with protected species 
with fishing gears and/or increase post-release survival of protected 
species once they have interacted with fishing gear.
    Comment 21: Most BLL fishermen deploy cable, and not monofilament 
line, so NMFS cannot assume that PLL and BLL are being deployed by the 
same vessel on any given trip.
    Response: Data collected from the commercial shark fishery observer 
program indicated that in 2005, approximately 24 percent of observed 
longline sets deployed cable line, 72 percent deployed monofilament, 
and approximatley 3 percent deployed a combination of monofilament and 
cable. Additionally, the PLL observer program has observed trips that 
use both PLL and BLL and such trips are reported in logbooks.
    Comment 22: Sometimes an inexperienced person with dehooking 
equipment is more dangerous to the fish than someone who does not 
attempt to pull the hook out themselves.
    Response: NMFS requires mandatory workshops resulting in 
certification on the safe handling, release, and disentanglement 
techniques as part of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2, 2006; 
71 FR 58058). These hands-on workshops provide training on the proper 
techniques for using the required safe handling and release equipment, 
which would prevent bycatch and protected species from sustaining 
additional injuries as a result of attempted dehooking or 
disentanglement.
    Comment 23: NMFS received numerous comments regarding the safety of 
fishermen while using safe handling and release protocols for sea 
turtles and confusion resulting from the terminology used to describe 
the requirements in the proposed rule. The comments included: the 
guidelines are confusing describing protocols that are required and 
that are not required; It would be valuable to have uniform (and 
intuitive) terminology to describe the protocols used in outreach 
materials so that fishermen know what is required and what is not, 
especially in situations where risks are involved; handling and release 
requirements pose a risk to safety of life at sea; the handling and 
release requirements should clearly state that they are to be employed 
only ``when practicable''; the documents speak towards risk to turtles 
but they do not speak towards risk to humans during the procedures -- a 
comparable caveat would be appropriate for any aspect of the 
disentanglement or line cutting; future mandatory workshops should 
discuss safety issues posed to humans while attempting to employ the 
handling and release requirements.
    Response: NMFS currently has protocols for how to safely dehook, 
disentangle, and release sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish that are 
caught in the PLL fishery. This rulemaking requires that these 
protocols for safe handling, release, and disentanglement are also 
mandatory for the BLL shark fishery. These protocols were developed to 
minimize risks to fishermen while attempting to employ the required 
equipment and guidelines. NMFS expects fishermen to disentangle and 
dehook a protected species (and/or bycatch) to the best of their 
ability and safety. For example, NMFS has protocols for smaller sea 
turtles that can be boated as well as separate protocols for sea 
turtles too large and dangerous to be boated.
    The Agency also uses consistent terminology for protocols and 
outreach

[[Page 5639]]

materials. In this rulemaking, NMFS has based the disentanglement, safe 
handling, and release requirements for protected species on the 
requirements in the PLL fishery to maintain consistency between the two 
HMS fisheries. In addition, the Agency provides placards, video 
demonstrations, and illustrations of these protocols in Vietnamese, 
Spanish, and English and is conducting workshops to certify fisherman 
in the use of the equipment.

Changes from Proposed Rule

    There are no changes from the proposed rule (March 29, 2006; 71 FR 
15680).

Classification

    This final rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    The final rule implementing management measures specific to 
Council-managed species was determined to be significant for purposes 
of Executive Order 12866. This final rule, which would close 
complementary areas for HMS fisheries and require dehooking equipment 
for BLL fishermen, has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    In compliance with 5 U.S.C. 604, a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The FRFA analyzes the 
anticipated impacts of the preferred alternatives and any significant 
alternatives to the final rule that could minimize significant economic 
impacts on small entities. Each of the statutory requirements of 
section 604 has been addressed, and a summary of the FRFA is provided 
below.
    NMFS also prepared a FRFA for the final rule that implemented the 
management measures in the Comprehensive Amendment to the Caribbean 
FMPs. The FRFA incorporated the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 
analysis (IRFA) published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 53979), a 
summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in 
response to the IRFA, NMFS' response to public comments on the IRFA, 
and a summary of the analyses completed to support that action. No 
comments were received in response to the IRFA that related to HMS 
fisheries. The IRFA prepared for the action in this final rule (March 
29, 2006; 71 FR 15680) incorporated by reference, the findings of the 
FRFA published on October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073), and describes the 
economic impact this action, if adopted, would have on small entities 
participating in HMS fisheries.
    Section 604(a)(1) requires the agency to state the objective and 
need for the rule. As stated in the preamble and in the proposed rule 
(March 29, 2006; 71 FR 15680), one objective of this final rulemaking 
is to update necessary equipment and protocols that vessel operators in 
the BLL fishery must possess, maintain, and utilize for the safe 
handling, release and disentanglement of sea turtles and other non-
target species. Another objective of this final rule is to implement 
measures that are complementary to CFMC-recommended measures that NMFS 
implemented on October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073).
    Section 604(a)(2) requires the Agency to summarize significant 
issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a summary 
of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a statement of any 
changes made in the rule as a result of such comments. NMFS received 
several comments on the proposed rule and draft EA during the public 
comment period. A summary of these comments and the Agency's responses 
are included in this final rule. NMFS did not receive any comments 
specific to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), but did 
receive a limited number of comments related to economic issues and 
concerns. These comments are responded to with the other comments (see 
Comments 4, 5, 6, and 13). The specific economic concerns are also 
summarized here.
    NMFS received several comments regarding the estimated costs of 
procuring the required dehooking equipment, both to individuals and to 
the shark BLL industry as a whole, including: NMFS should emphasize 
that BLL operators could reduce costs of required equipment by making 
most of the equipment themselves; and a significant portion of the 284 
vessels already have PLL permits and already have the equipment, 
therefore the estimated economic impact associated with the preferred 
alternative of $71,900 to $138,400 seems high.
    NMFS has stated that BLL operators may construct dehooking 
equipment as long as it meets design standards at 50 CFR 635.21(c). 
NMFS also assumes that numerous BLL participants already possess some 
of the equipment required by this rulemaking which would minimize 
economic impacts of this final rulemaking. NMFS estimates the number of 
vessel owners that could potentially be impacted by this rulemaking to 
be 284. This estimate is derived because 284 of the 555 incidental and 
directed shark permit holders do not have a directed or incidental 
swordfish permit. An incidental or directed swordfish permit would be 
necessary to fish with PLL gear and these vessels would already be 
required to possess, maintain and utilize the equipment and protocols 
prescribed in this final rulemaking. NMFS agrees that this may be an 
overestimate, as it does not account for latent effort in BLL and PLL 
fisheries. However, whether permit holders had been inactive in the 
recent past would not exempt them from the need to procure the required 
equipment before fishing in the future.
    Finally, a comment was received asking NMFS if they were going to 
subsidize or pay for the purchase of dehooking equipment.
    NMFS does not have any plans to subsidize the purchase of dehooking 
equipment for participants in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery. The costs 
of compliance with this rulemaking can be minimized by fisherman making 
some of the required equipment themselves, provided it meets the design 
standards in 50 CFR 635.21(c) and outlined in Appendix A of the EA for 
this rulemaking.
    No changes were made in the rule as a result of these comments. The 
comments provided did not warrant additional means of minimizing 
economic impacts while meeting the objectives of this rule.
    Section 604(a)(3) requires the Agency to describe and estimate the 
number of small entities to which the final rule will apply. NMFS 
considers all permit holders to be small entities as reflected in the 
Small Business Administrations (SBA) criteria (gross receipts less than 
$3.5 million, the SBA size standard for defining a small versus large 
business entity). As of October 2005, there were approximately 235 
directed shark permit holders and 320 incidental shark permit holders 
for a total of 555 permit holders who are authorized to fish for 
sharks. NMFS considers the 284 shark permit holders that do not also 
hold swordfish permits to be the universe of permit holders that will 
be affected by this final rulemaking.
    The complementary measures implemented by the CFMC that are 
included in this rulemaking for Atlantic HMS fishermen will result in 
six, year-round, BLL gear closures. This could potentially impact all 
555 directed and incidental shark fishermen. However, NMFS assumes that 
shark fishermen residing outside of the Caribbean region would not 
travel to this region to target sharks due to the extensive distances 
involved. Therefore, only one incidental shark fishing permit holder 
and one shark dealer permit holder (both in the U.S. Virgin Islands) 
may be directly

[[Page 5640]]

affected by these measures. There are no shark limited access permit 
holders or shark dealer permit holders in Puerto Rico.
    Other sectors of HMS fisheries such as dealers, processors, bait 
houses, and gear manufacturers, some of which are considered small 
entities, might be indirectly affected by the final regulations. 
However, the final rule does not apply directly to them. Rather it 
applies only to permit holders and fishermen.
    Section 604(a)(4) requires the agency to describe the projected 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the 
final rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities 
which will be subject to the requirements of the report or record. The 
preferred alternative for additional requirements for safe handling and 
release of sea turtle and other non-target species in this document 
will result in additional equipment and compliance requirements for 
vessels fishing with shark BLL gear. However, there will be no change 
in projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
    Section 604(a)(5) requires the Agency to describe the steps taken 
to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities 
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. 
Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general 
categories of ``significant'' alternatives that would assist an agency 
in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of 
alternatives are:
    1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements 
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities;
    2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
    3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and
    4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.
    As noted earlier, NMFS considers all permit holders to be small 
entities. In order to meet the objectives of this final rule, 
consistent with Magunson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the ESA, NMFS cannot 
exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for 
small entities. Additionally, the handling and release gear 
requirements would not be effective with different compliance 
requirements. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed which fall 
under the first and fourth categories described above. In addition, 
none of the alternatives considered would result in modifications to 
reporting or compliance requirements (category two above). All 
alternatives considered are based on design standards rather than 
performance standards; fishermen would be in compliance with the final 
rulemaking as long as they possess gear and utilize gear that conforms 
to the design specifications located in Appendix A of the EA for this 
rulemaking for the safe handling, release, and disentanglement of 
protected resources. Any item may be constructed or purchased and used 
by fisherman provided that it meets the design standards listed at 50 
CFR 635.21(c). When new items are certified, a notice in the Federal 
Register will be published. As described below, NMFS analyzed three 
different alternatives in this final rulemaking and provides 
justification for selection of the preferred alternative to achieve the 
desired objectives.
    The alternatives include: Alternative 1 (A1), maintaining the 
current requirements in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery for safe 
handling, release, and disentanglement of protected resources (status 
quo); Alternative 2 (A2), requiring Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL 
gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize certain safe handling, 
release, and disentanglement of protected resources gears based on 
freeboard height; and Alternative 3 (A3), the preferred alternative, 
requiring Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, 
maintain, and utilize all the equipment that is currently required for 
the HMS PLL fishery regardless of vessel freeboard height.
    A1 would maintain status quo in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery for 
safe handling, release, and disentanglement of protected resources. The 
costs for A1 (approximately $120-$370) represent the cost BLL fishermen 
have already incurred to comply with HMS BLL regulations for the safe 
handling, release, and disentanglement of sea turtles, smalltooth 
sawfish, and other protected resources. Additional economic impacts 
would not be expected relative to the status quo for the fishery. 
However, adverse economic impacts could result if no action is taken to 
reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality because continued operation of the 
shark fishery is contingent upon compliance with the 2003 BiOp. Sea 
turtles could have significantly lower post-release survival if hooks 
and associated fishing gear are not removed; removing fishing hooks and 
associated gear could help reduce post-release mortality and help the 
fishery stay below the incidental take limits for the fishery. This 
could avoid more restrictive regulations to reduce sea turtle bycatch.
    The economic impact of A2 depends on freeboard height of the 
Atlantic shark BLL vessel. The estimated costs range from $152 for low-
end priced equipment on vessels with a freeboard four feet (1.22 m) or 
less to $477 for high-end priced equipment on vessels with a freeboard 
height greater than four feet (these costs do not include current 
requirements for the BLL fishery as outlined in A1). The immediate 
economic impacts of A2 are slightly less than those of the preferred 
alternative. However, unlike A3, which will require Atlantic shark 
fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize all 
the equipment that is currently required for the HMS PLL fishery, under 
A2, BLL fishermen and crew would not be able to move to the PLL fishery 
as easily because they would not have all the required dehooking 
equipment for that fishery. Therefore, in the long-term, under A3 
Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear will not have to purchase 
different equipment in order to participate in the PLL fishery.
    The dehooking equipment requirement under A2 would depend on the 
vessel's freeboard height, as certain long-handled equipment would not 
be necessary for vessels with a smaller freeboard (4 feet (1.22 m) or 
less). The 4 foot or less freeboard height was chosen as the threshold 
for not needing long-handled dehookers because it is assumed that the 
handle length of a short-handled dehooker in addition to a fisherman's 
arm length would be sufficient for reaching and dehooking non-boated 
sea turtles and other protected resources. However, the majority of sea 
turtles that would interact with Atlantic BLL fisheries are large 
juvenile loggerhead and adult leatherback sea turtles. Large juvenile 
loggerheads and adult leatherback sea turtles would most likely be too 
large to be boated, requiring dehooking to occur while the sea turtles 
remain in the water (i.e., small sea turtles can be boated and short-
handled dehookers can be used to remove hooks). If long-handled 
dehookers might facilitate improved hook removal, release, or 
disentanglement of larger turtles (and research in the NED for the PLL 
fishery has shown that some turtles released alive may subsequently die 
from hook ingestion, trailing gear, or injuries suffered when entangled 
in gear), A2 would have less of an ecological benefit compared to A3.
    A3, the preferred alternative, will require Atlantic shark 
fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain,

[[Page 5641]]

and utilize all the equipment that is currently required for the HMS 
PLL fishery regardless of vessel freeboard height. NMFS preferred this 
alternative because it would improve post-hooking survival of sea 
turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other protected resources and maintain 
consistency between the PLL and BLL fisheries. This alternative would 
have positive ecological impacts and negative short-term economic 
impacts. A3 is estimated to have an economic impact of a minimum of 
$253 to $487 for vessels with a freeboard height of four feet (1.22 m) 
or less. This range represents the range of low-end and high-end priced 
gears (see Table 6.2 and Table 6.4 in Chapter 6). Larger economic 
impacts are expected for Atlantic shark fishermen with vessels with 
freeboard heights greater than four feet (and costs will be dependent 
on freeboard height due to variable costs of long-handled dehooking 
gears; Table 6.2).
    However, reducing mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and 
other protected resources is an integral part of maintaining compliance 
with the relevant BiOp. Consistent with the October 29, 2003, BiOp, 
NMFS is required to ensure that fishermen handle protected species 
taken during fishing activities in such a way as to increase their 
chances of survival. The final rule that implemented NMFS-approved 
dehooking, disentanglement, and release gear and protocols on all 
vessels with PLL onboard represents the most up to date scientific 
information regarding protocols for maximizing post-hooking survival of 
protected species. Because of the similarities between these fisheries 
and the fact that many vessel operators and owners fish with both BLL 
and PLL gear, NMFS is selecting the alternative (A3) that would enable 
Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to follow the protocols 
and possess the equipment necessary for the PLL fishery, easing 
determination of compliance for both fishermen and enforcement. This 
could also provide fishermen with the flexibility to change between PLL 
and BLL gear without additional cost. The final rule will allow 
Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to construct additional 
equipment themselves provided it meets design specifications. Such 
construction could reduce economic impacts. In addition, most fishermen 
have bolt cutters, needle nose pliers, monofilament cutters, boat 
hooks, and some mouth gags (i.e., the wooden handle of a wire brush, 
hank of rope, etc) already onboard their vessel, so these items would 
not have to be purchased. The cost of dehooking gear and time and 
effort involved in properly dehooking animals may be offset by gaining 
efficiency in not having to re-rig fishing equipment, and economic gain 
from retrieving hooks. Such gain could be substantial given an average 
price for a circle hook is $2.24 (ranging from $0.30 to $7.00 each), 
and an average price of a J-hook is $2.70 (ranging from $0.50 to $7.50 
each) (NMFS, 2005).
    The measures implemented by the CFMC are intended to minimize 
adverse impacts to EFH (coral and hard bottom habitat), to the extent 
practicable, as a result of bottom tending gear. This final rule will 
implement six closures off the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, 
preventing HMS permit holders with BLL gear onboard their vessels, from 
deploying, or fishing with any fishing gear in these closed areas. 
These closures are expected to have de minimus impacts on HMS permit 
holders in the Caribbean region. There are no other alternatives that 
would achieve the objective of minimizing adverse impacts of bottom 
fishing on EFH. Additional detail and analysis is included in the FSEIS 
for the Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the 
U.S. Caribbean and the final rule implementing these measures for 
council managed fisheries.
    This final rule contains no new collection of information 
requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under PRA.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing Vessels, Foreign Relations, Imports, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: February 1, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223, chapter II, and 
part 635, chapter VI, are amended as follows:

CHAPTER II

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  223.206, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  223.206  Exceptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) In addition to the provisions of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 
section, a person aboard a vessel in the Atlantic, including the 
Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, that has pelagic or bottom 
longline gear on board and that has been issued, or is required to 
have, a limited access permit for highly migratory species under Sec.  
635.4 of this title, must comply with the handling and release 
requirements specified in Sec.  635.21 of this title.
* * * * *

CHAPTER VI

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

0
3. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  635.21, paragraph (d)(3)(iv) is removed and paragraphs 
(a)(3), (d)(1), (d)(3)(i), and (d)(3)(ii) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (3) All vessels that have pelagic or bottom longline gear onboard 
and that have been issued, or are required to have, a limited access 
swordfish, shark, or tuna longline category permit for use in the 
Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must 
possess inside the wheelhouse the document provided by NMFS entitled 
``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with Minimal 
Injury,'' and must also post inside the wheelhouse the sea turtle 
handling and release guidelines provided by NMFS.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) If bottom longline gear is onboard a vessel issued a permit 
under this part, persons aboard that vessel may not fish or deploy any 
type of fishing gear in the following areas:
    (i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed areas from January 1 through July 
31 each calendar year, except that in 2007 the mid-Atlantic shark 
closed area will be closed from January 1 through June 30 and may open 
in July, contingent upon available quota; and
    (ii) The areas designated at Sec.  622.33(a) of this title, year-
round.
* * * * *

[[Page 5642]]

    (3) * * *
    (i) Possession and use of required mitigation gear. The equipment 
listed in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section must be carried on board 
and must be used to handle, release, and disentangle hooked or 
entangled sea turtles, prohibited sharks, or smalltooth sawfish in 
accordance with requirements specified in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this 
section.
    (ii) Handling and release requirements. Sea turtle bycatch 
mitigation gear, as required by paragraph (d)(3)(i)of this section, 
must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtles as stated 
in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This mitigation gear should 
also be employed to disengage any hooked or entangled species of 
prohibited sharks as listed in Category (D) of Table 1 of Appendix A of 
this part. If a smalltooth sawfish is caught, the fish should be kept 
in the water while maintaining water flow over the gills and examined 
for research tags and the line should be cut as close to the hook as 
possible. Dehooking devices should not be used to release smalltooth 
sawfish.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  635.71, paragraph (a)(33) is revised as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (33) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with 
pelagic or bottom longline gear on board without carrying the required 
sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, as specified at Sec.  
635.21(c)(5)(i) for pelagic longline gear and Sec.  635.21(d)(3)(i) for 
bottom longline gear. This equipment must be utilized in accordance 
with Sec.  635.21(c)(5)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii) for pelagic and bottom 
longline gear, respectively.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-2011 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S