[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 144 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41392-41412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14536]



[[Page 41391]]

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

Part II





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Parts 600 and 635



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41392]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 635

[Docket No. 0612242866-7310-01]
RIN 0648-AU89


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management 
Measures

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

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

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the draft Amendment 2 to 
the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP) and its accompanying proposed rule. Amendment 2 examines 
different management alternatives available to rebuild sandbar, dusky, 
and porbeagle sharks, consistent with the 2006 shark stock assessments, 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), and other applicable law. The proposed rule to implement 
Amendment 2 would, among other things, allow for a limited shark 
research fishery for sandbar sharks, establish a trip limit for 
commercial harvest of non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), prohibit 
the landing and possession of porbeagle sharks, require all sharks 
landed to have fins attached through landing, eliminate the regions and 
trimester seasons, and modify the species that can be landed by 
recreational fishermen. These changes could affect all fishermen who 
fish for sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Caribbean Sea.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 must be 
received no later than 5 p.m. on October 10, 2007.
    Ten public hearings on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 
will be held in August and September 2007. For specific dates and times 
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be held in Florida, Louisiana, 
Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas. For 
specific locations see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document.
    Written comments on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 may be 
submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species Management 
Division:
     Email: [email protected]. Include in the subject line the 
following identifier: Shark amendment 2 comments.
     Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
Please mark the outside of the envelope ``Shark amendment 2 comments.''
     Fax: 301-713-1917.
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory 
Species Management Division and by e-mail to [email protected] 
or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Copies of the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, the 
latest shark stock assessments, and other documents relevant to this 
rule are available from the Highly Migratory Species Management 
Division website at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by contacting Heather 
Halter at 301-713-2347.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Clark, Karyl Brewster-Geisz, 
or LeAnn Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917 or Jackie 
Wilson at 404-806-7622 or fax 404-806-9188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
    Based on the results of the 2005 Canadian porbeagle shark stock 
assessment, the 2006 dusky shark stock assessment, and the 2005/2006 
LCS stock assessment, NMFS has determined that a number of shark 
fisheries are overfished and an amendment to the current Consolidated 
HMS FMP is needed to develop management measures to rebuild overfished 
shark stocks and to prevent overfishing.
    Unlike past assessments, the recently completed 2005/2006 LCS stock 
assessment determined that it is inappropriate to assess the LCS 
complex as a whole due to the variation in life history parameters, 
different intrinsic rates of increase, and different catch and 
abundance data for all species included in the LCS complex. Based on 
these results, NMFS changed the status of the LCS complex from 
overfished to unknown (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006).
    According to this stock assessment, sandbar sharks are overfished 
(SSF2004/SSFMSY = 0.72; SSF is spawning stock 
fecundity and was used a proxy for biomass), and overfishing is 
occurring (F2004 / FMSY = 3.72). As described in 
the 2005/2006 stock assessment, spawning stock fecundity, which is the 
sum of the number of mature females at age times their pup-production, 
is used instead of biomass because biomass does not influence pup 
production in sharks. The assessment recommends that rebuilding could 
be achieved with 70 percent probability by 2070 with a total allowable 
catch (TAC) across all fisheries that catch sharks of 220 metric tons 
(mt) whole weight (ww) each year (158 mt dressed weight (dw)) and 
fishing pressure (F) between 0.0009 and 0.011. The proposed rebuilding 
plan mirrors the rebuilding plan recommended by the stock assessment.
    Based on tagging studies that suggested that the blacktip shark 
stocks are geographically distinct and isolated, the 2005/2006 stock 
assessment assessed blacktip sharks for the first time as two separate 
populations: Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. NMFS has declared that the 
Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark population is not overfished with no 
overfishing occurring (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). The 2005/2006 
stock assessment indicated that the Gulf of Mexico population is 
healthy and that current catches should not increase in order to keep 
this population at a sustainable level. For the blacktip shark 
population in the South Atlantic region, the 2005/2006 assessment was 
unable to provide estimates of stock status or reliable population 
projections, but indicated that current catch levels should not change. 
NMFS has declared that the South Atlantic blacktip shark population is 
unknown (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006).
    In 1999, dusky sharks, which were in the LCS complex, were placed 
on the prohibited species list due to their low population growth rate 
and low reproductive potential. In 2003, in Amendment 1 to the FMP for 
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (68 FR 74746, December 24, 2003), 
NMFS established a mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure to protect 
dusky sharks and juvenile sandbar sharks. Due to high catch rates of 
dusky sharks in the shark bottom longline fishery in the mid-Atlantic 
closed area and the high mortality of dusky sharks on bottom longline 
gear, NMFS closed this area to bottom longline fishing from January 1 
through July 31 of every year, starting in January 2005. NMFS released 
the first dusky-specific shark assessment in May

[[Page 41393]]

2006 (71 FR 30123, May 25, 2006). The 2006 dusky shark stock assessment 
used data through 2003 and indicates that dusky sharks are overfished 
(B2003/BMSY = 0.15 0.47) with overfishing 
occurring (F2004/FMSY = 1.68 1,810). The 
assessment indicates that rebuilding for dusky sharks could require 100 
to 400 years. Based on these results, NMFS declared the status of dusky 
sharks as overfished with overfishing occurring (71 FR 65086, November 
7, 2006). The proposed rule would establish a rebuilding plan to 
rebuild dusky sharks in 100 to 400 years consistent with the stock 
assessment. This rebuilding plan includes keeping dusky sharks on the 
prohibited species list and actions to reduce dusky shark mortality and 
bycatch, to the extent practicable.
    Canada has conducted stock assessments on porbeagle sharks in 1999, 
2001, 2003, and 2005. Reduced Canadian porbeagle quotas in 2002 brought 
the 2004 exploitation rate to a sustainable level. According to the 
2005 recovery assessment report conducted by Canada, the North Atlantic 
porbeagle stock has a 70 percent probability of recovery in 
approximately 100 years if F is less than or equal to 0.04. To date, 
the United States has not conducted a stock assessment on porbeagle 
sharks. NMFS has reviewed the Canadian stock assessment and deems it to 
be the best available science and appropriate to use for U.S. domestic 
management purposes because porbeagle sharks are a unit stock that 
extends into U.S. waters. The Canadian assessment indicates that 
porbeagle sharks are overfished (SSN2004/ BSSNMSY 
= 0.15 0.32; SSN is spawning stock number and used as a proxy for 
biomass). However, the Canadian assessment indicates that overfishing 
is not occurring (F2004/FMSY = 0.83). Based on 
these results, NMFS declared porbeagle sharks as overfished, but not 
experiencing overfishing (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). While United 
States vessels take only a small proportion of the porbeagle sharks 
harvested in the Northwest Atlantic, NMFS proposes measures to increase 
the likelihood that fishing mortality remains below 0.04 and rebuilding 
occurs in 100 years. Because Canada has the largest harvest of 
porbeagle sharks, the proposed rule would establish a rebuilding plan 
for porbeagle sharks that is consistent with the Canadian assessment. 
This rebuilding plan includes placing porbeagle sharks on the 
prohibited species list to prevent fishing effort from increasing in 
the future and minimizing porbeagle shark mortality and bycatch, to the 
extent practicable.
    NMFS announced its intent to conduct an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65086) and held seven 
scoping meetings in January 2007 (72 FR 123, January 3, 2007). In March 
2006, NMFS presented a predraft of the Amendment 2 to the HMS Advisory 
Panel (72 FR 7860, February 21, 2007). Based in part on the comments 
received during scoping and from the HMS Advisory Panel, NMFS proposes 
a number of management measures that would implement Amendment 2. 
Consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law, the objectives for this proposed 
rule are to: (1) implement rebuilding plans for sandbar, dusky, and 
porbeagle sharks; (2) provide an opportunity for the sustainable 
harvest of blacktip and other sharks, as appropriate; (3) prevent 
overfishing of Atlantic sharks; (4) analyze bottom longline time/area 
closures and take necessary action to maintain or modify the closures, 
as appropriate; and (5) improve, to the extent practicable, data 
collections or data collection programs.
    In addition to the proposed management alternative described below, 
NMFS proposes to take additional administrative actions. These include: 
(1) allowing fishermen to remove hooks from smalltooth sawfish (Sec.  
635.21 (d)(3)) based on a March 23, 2007, memorandum from the Office of 
Protected Resources changing this requirement in the 2003 Biological 
Opinion for Atlantic sharks; (2) requiring stock assessments at least 
once every 5 years; (3) allowing for the release of the annual Stock 
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report by fall of each year; and (4) 
clarifying various existing regulations, for example stating that only 
the first receiver needs a shark dealer permit and that shark dealer 
reports must be species-specific.
    NMFS prepared a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the draft Amendment 2 that 
discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A 
copy of the DEIS/draft Amendment 2 is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES). The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to publish 
the notice of availability for this DEIS on or about the same date that 
this proposed rule publishes.
    The following is a summary of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS 
for Amendment 2. Additional analyses and descriptions are provided in 
the DEIS. NMFS fully considered five different alternative suites based 
on the above-described objectives and best available scientific 
information. Based on the recommendations of the latest stock 
assessments, significant reductions in quotas are needed to prevent 
overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The necessary reductions 
effectively preclude operation of the shark fishery as it has been 
prosecuted in past years. As reflected below, NMFS has developed 
alternative suites that would provide for some fishing of sharks 
consistent with the stock assessments and that would allow for 
continued collection of data needed for stock assessments and 
evaluation of conservation and management measures. Each alternative 
suite analyzed certain management actions under seven different topics 
including quotas/species complexes, retention limits, time/area 
closures, reporting, seasons, regions, and recreational measures. The 
proposed alternative discussed below is the preferred alternative in 
the DEIS.

Analyses of the Proposed Alternative Suite

    Under the proposed alternative (alternative 4), NMFS would, among 
other things, remove sandbar sharks from the LCS complex; establish a 
commercial sandbar shark quota of 116.6 mt dw; establish a commercial 
non-sandbar LCS quota of 541.2 mt dw; add porbeagle sharks to the 
prohibited species list; establish a shark research fishery that would 
allow a limited number of commercial vessels to fish a limited number 
of trips for all LCS, including sandbar sharks; reduce the retention 
limit for all other commercial vessels to 22 non-sandbar LCS and 0 
sandbar sharks; require fins, including the tail, to be landed attached 
to all sharks; maintain the mid-Atlantic shark closed area and 
implement several other closed areas from Florida through North 
Carolina, per the recommendation of the South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council (SAFMC); require dealer reports be received (rather 
than postmarked) by a certain date; eliminate the trimesters and 
regions and replace them with one fishing season starting January 1 and 
one region including the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Caribbean Sea; and limit recreational anglers to possessing only those 
shark species that are easily identified, including bonnethead, nurse, 
tiger, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, 
lemon, sharpnose, shortfin mako, common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and 
blue sharks.

A. Quotas, Species Complexes, and Retention Limits

    Under the proposed alternative, the current LCS complex would be 
split

[[Page 41394]]

into two groups: sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS. The sandbar shark 
quota would be 116.6 mt dw (257,056 lb dw) and the commercial non-
sandbar LCS quota would be 541.2 mt dw (1,196,129.5 lb dw). The 116.6 
mt dw quota for sandbar sharks would be allocated to the vessels 
operating in the research fishery. In addition, based on catch 
composition in the bottom longline observer program, NMFS anticipates 
that 50 mt dw (110,230 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota would be 
caught in the research fishery. The rest of the non-sandbar LCS quota 
could be taken by vessels operating outside of the research fishery. 
These quotas are based on recommendations from the most recent LCS 
stock assessment. Therefore, this level of fishing effort would stop 
overfishing of sandbar sharks and allow sandbar sharks to rebuild as 
well as keep other LCS, such as the blacktip shark, from being 
overfished and from experiencing overfishing.
    Establishing a separate category for sandbar sharks from the LCS 
complex is mainly administrative in nature and should only affect how 
NMFS monitors the sandbar shark quota. The establishment of a separate 
sandbar shark category by itself will not impact fishermen, as they 
currently record shark interactions on a species basis in the logbooks. 
Similarly, establishing the other LCS into a non-sandbar LCS category 
is similar to how the LCS fishery has been managed in the past and 
should have few economic or social impacts. However, as described 
below, the quota reductions and retention limits could have negative 
economic and social impacts.
    Under the proposed alternative, vessels with either a directed or 
incidental shark limited access permit (LAP) could apply to participate 
in the shark research fishery. Each year NMFS would publish shark 
research objectives for the year and request proposals that meet these 
objectives. Shark fishermen who were interested in participating would 
apply for a permit to fish in the shark research fishery. Based on the 
research objectives for a given year, NMFS scientists and managers 
would select a few vessels (i.e., 5-10 vessels) each year to conduct 
the prescribed research. Selected vessels would work with NMFS to 
conduct shark research. Vessels selected for the research fishery would 
be subject to 100 percent observer coverage; however, fishermen in the 
shark research fishery would be afforded higher trip limits and could 
sell their catch, including sandbar sharks, compared to vessels outside 
the research fishery. This research fishery would allow the collection 
of fishery-dependent data for future stock assessments as well as allow 
NMFS and fishermen to conduct cooperative research to meet the shark 
research objectives for NMFS.
    Only vessels operating within the research fishery would be allowed 
to harvest the sandbar shark quota until 80 percent of the sandbar 
shark or non-sandbar LCS quota was met. At that time, the shark fishery 
would shut down to account for state landings and ensure the 116.6 mt 
dw commercial sandbar quota was not overharvested.
    Retention limits of sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS for vessels 
operating in the shark research fishery would depend on the research 
objectives of a given year. For example, assuming a catch composition 
of 70 percent sandbar sharks (and hence, 30 percent non-sandbar LCS) 
the 116.6 mt dw sandbar quota could be fulfilled in 92 trips with a 
4,000 lb dw sandbar and non-sandbar LCS trip limit (70 percent x 4,000 
lb dw trip limit = 2,800 lb dw sandbar sharks per trip; 92 trips x 
2,800 lb dw of sandbar sharks = 257,600 lb dw or 116.6 mt dw). On 
average, under the current regulations, 872 directed permit holder 
trips were made under the 4,000 lb dw LCS trip limit from 2003 to 2005. 
NMFS expects the number of trips under the research shark permit to be 
lower than the current average number of trips per year, and therefore, 
anticipates that the proposed alternative would have positive 
ecological impacts for sandbar sharks. Each shark research permit would 
specify the amount of sandbar and non-sandbar LCS allowed per trip.
    To participate in the research fishery, vessel owners holding a 
directed or incidental shark LAP would need to submit an application 
annually to NMFS for a shark research permit. The shark research permit 
would be considered a specifically authorized activity, and fishermen 
would apply in a manner similar to how they apply for an exempted 
fishing permit (EFP). NMFS would review all applications and would 
issue permits to those vessel owners that meet certain criteria as 
specified in the regulations and also meet the published shark research 
objectives for that year. Specifically, NMFS would need to ensure that 
eligible vessels are spread throughout the range of the shark fishery 
and that vessels could fish for sharks throughout the year. The number 
of vessels issued a shark research permit each year may vary depending 
on available quota and the amount expected to be collected by each 
individual vessel. Depending on the data needed from the fishery that 
year for stock assessment and other scientific purposes (e.g., 
comparison of catch rates between circle and J hooks), NMFS may include 
other criteria, as needed, including the need to attend specific 
training sessions such as the shark identification workshops that are 
currently required for shark dealers. Vessel owners issued a shark 
research permit would not need to submit the interim or annual reports 
required with other specifically authorized activities. Rather, vessel 
owners would need to continue submitting logbook reports as required 
when fishing under the shark LAP. Once issued, the shark research 
permit would be valid only when a NMFS-approved observer is on board 
and all other terms and conditions of the permit are being followed.
    Vessels in the shark research fishery would be required to sell 
sharks, including sandbar sharks, to only permitted dealers, as is 
currently required. NMFS is considering requiring dealers to obtain 
specific information from each vessel owner or operator for each 
sandbar shark landed. This information may be required to accompany 
each sandbar shark to final disposition. NMFS is also considering other 
methods of ensuring that sandbar sharks are landed only by vessels 
issued a shark research permit with an observer on board but is not 
proposing a specific method at this time.
    Vessels that do not have a shark research permit, or vessels that 
have been issued a shark research permit but do not have a NMFS-
approved observer on board, could still land 22 non-sandbar LCS per 
trip and SCS and pelagic sharks subject to the current retention limits 
determined by their permit type. On average, directed permit holders 
landed 40 non-sandbar LCS per trip as reported in the Coastal Fisheries 
and HMS Logbooks from 2003 to 2005. Therefore, this would be a 48 
percent reduction in non-sandbar LCS per trip for directed permit 
holders. Incidental permit holders landed 3.7 non-sandbar LCS per trip 
on average as reported in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks from 
2003 to 2005. Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate any adverse effects 
on incidental permit holders. Total landings of non-sandbar LCS by 
boats outside the research fishery would be limited to approximately 
491 mt dw (assuming, as discussed previously, that 50 mt dw of the non-
sandbar LCS quota would be caught while fishermen filled the 116.6 mt 
dw of sandbar shark quota in the research fishery), in order to ensure 
that the total 541.2 mt dw of the LCS quota would not be exceeded.
    It is anticipated that sandbar shark discards will occur on gear 
such as pelagic longline (PLL) gear, which could

[[Page 41395]]

interact with sandbar sharks from vessels operating outside the 
research fishery (approximately 4.3 mt dw). Shark discards in the 
research fishery are anticipated to occur as they have during directed 
shark trips in the past. Outside of the research fishery, vessels would 
not be able to land sandbar sharks and would have to discard them. 
Because of these discards in and out of the research fishery, it is 
anticipated that discards of sandbar sharks may increase by 36 percent 
compared to current discards. However, commercial landings and discards 
would still be reduced by 82 percent compared to alternative 1 (no 
action: 728 mt dw in landings + 9.6 mt dw in discards = 737.6 mt dw 
total; alternative 4: 116.6 mt dw in landings + 13.1 mt dw in discards 
= 129.7 mt dw). The total commercial landings and discards plus an 
estimated 27 mt dw of recreational landings (156.7 mt dw total) is 
still below the 158.3 mt dw sandbar shark TAC recommended in the 2005/
2006 LCS stock assessment. Therefore, quotas and retention limits under 
the proposed alternative would meet the rebuilding plan for sandbar 
sharks and would have positive ecological impacts on this stock.
    Additionally, since the boats in the research fishery would be 
directing on sharks, it is assumed that dusky shark discards would 
occur during those research trips as they have in the past when there 
were directed BLL trips. However, since the overall number of boats 
operating in the research fishery would be limited, it is anticipated 
that dusky shark discards could decrease by 72 percent under the 
proposed alternative, resulting in positive ecological impacts for this 
stock.
    Based on the small number of boats that could fish for sandbar 
sharks in the research fishery, most current directed and incidental 
permit holders would not be allowed to land sandbar sharks, resulting 
in negative socio-economic impacts for these permit holders. In 
addition, since directed permit holders presumably make a greater 
percentage of their gross revenues from sandbar shark landings, 
directed permit holders outside the research fishery would be expected 
to have larger negative socioeconomic impacts compared to incidental 
permit holders outside of the research fishery. However, to mitigate 
some of these impacts, directed and incidental permit holders outside 
of the research fishery would still be allowed to land non-sandbar LCS, 
SCS, and pelagic sharks.
    In 2006 ex-vessel prices, it is estimated that vessels operating in 
the research fishery could make $490,411 in gross revenues of sandbar 
shark and non-sandbar LCS landings. Vessels operating outside of the 
research fishery could make approximately $1,502,994 in gross revenues. 
In total, vessels operating in and outside of the research fishery are 
expected to have gross revenues of $1,993,435 in sandbar shark and non-
sandbar LCS landings. This is a 48 percent reduction in gross revenues 
from sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS under the no action alternative 
(gross revenues based on current directed and incidental permit 
holders' landings were $3,824,589).
    Also under the proposed alternative, porbeagle sharks would be 
prohibited in the commercial and recreational sectors. This is expected 
to have neutral ecological impacts for this stock since the United 
States has had minimal landings of this species. In addition, since 
most porbeagle sharks are caught on pelagic longline gear, reductions 
in fishing effort associated with BLL gear from reductions in the 
sandbar shark quota are not anticipated to have much of an ecological 
benefit for this species. Prohibiting the retention of porbeagle sharks 
is anticipated to increase dead discards by 0.4 porbeagle sharks per 
year. Based on the average porbeagle shark landings from 2002 to 2004 
(1.5 mt dw or 3,402 lb dw) and 2006 ex-vessel prices, placing porbeagle 
sharks on the prohibited species list is equivalent to a $6,081 gross 
revenues loss in porbeagle shark landings.
    This alternative would also change how NMFS adjusts quotas. Under 
the current regulations, NMFS adjusts the shark quota based on under- 
and overharvests from the previous year. Under this alternative, 
adjustments would be based, in part, on the status of the stock. If the 
status of the stock is considered to be unknown or overfished and/or if 
overfishing is occurring, NMFS would not adjust for underharvests. NMFS 
would continue to adjust for overharvests. These measures should ensure 
that overfished species continue to rebuild under the rebuilding plan 
and species that are unknown or that have overfishing occurring do not 
become overfished. However, if the status of the stock is known or not 
overfished and if overfishing is not occurring, then NMFS would adjust 
for underharvests until the quota is 50 percent above the base quota 
(e.g., if the base quota is 100 mt, NMFS would adjust it to a maximum 
of 150 mt). As with the no action alternative, NMFS would continue to 
adjust for overharvests. These measures should ensure that species that 
are not overfished do not become overfished.
    This alternative would also require all shark fins, including the 
tail, to be landed attached to the shark carcass. Fishermen could cut 
the fin partially off the carcass as long as skin remains attaching the 
fin to the carcass. This type of cut should allow the fins to be folded 
against the carcass for storage purposes and should ensure that the 
quality of the meat does not degrade. Requiring the fins to remain on 
the carcass is a change from the current fishery, which allows 
fishermen to cut the fins off the carcass prior to landing as long as 
both the fins and carcass are landed together. Keeping the fins 
attached to the carcass should have some positive ecological impacts in 
that species identification should be improved for reporting and 
enforcement purposes, and enforcement of the ban on shark finning would 
be facilitated. The overall economic impacts should also be minor as 
fishermen should be able to receive the same ex-vessel price for the 
meat and fins but, in the short term, the market would likely undergo 
some changes as fishermen and dealers work out who would be responsible 
for cutting the fins off the shark once the shark is offloaded.
    This alternative would also modify the current quota available for 
EFPs and display permits. This alternative would not limit the sharks 
available under scientific research permits or letters of 
acknowledgment. The current shark quota for EFPs and display permits is 
60 mt ww. This alternative would not allow for dusky sharks to be taken 
under EFPs or display permits. This alternative would also split 
sandbar sharks out of the 60 mt ww quota and provide for quotas of 1.4 
mt ww (1 mt dw) for sandbar shark EFPs, 1.4 mt ww for sandbar shark 
display permits, and 57.2 mt ww (41.2 mt dw) for all other shark 
species, other than dusky sharks. Except for dusky sharks, these quota 
changes are mainly administrative in nature because the quota has not 
been taken in the past. However, all of these changes should help NMFS 
provide more control over shark species that are on long-term 
rebuilding plans.

B. Time/Area Closures

    Also, under the proposed alternative, NMFS would maintain the mid-
Atlantic shark closed area to BLL gear and the current BLL closures in 
the Caribbean that were implemented in March 2007 (72 FR 5633, February 
7, 2007). Therefore, the ecological impacts associated with these 
closures would be the same as described under the no action 
alternative.
    In addition, NMFS would implement the marine protected areas (MPAs) 
recommended by the SAFMC that range from North Carolina to the Florida 
Keys. These MPAs were proposed in

[[Page 41396]]

Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper FMP. A total of 19 MPAs were 
initially considered in Amendment 14, and 8 of the MPAs were preferred 
in the SAFMC's final recommendations in June 2007. The eight MPAs 
include one off southern North Carolina, three off South Carolina, one 
off Georgia, and three off Florida.
    The primary purpose of Amendment 14 is to protect the population 
and habitat of slow growing, long-lived deepwater snapper grouper 
species (speckled hind, snowy grouper, Warsaw grouper, yellowedge 
grouper, misty grouper, golden tilefish, and blueline tilefish) from 
directed fishing pressure. The only HMS authorized gear that has the 
potential to interact with these species is bottom longline gear. HMS 
permitted vessels that fish with bottom longline gear normally target 
large coastal sharks, but small coastal, pelagic and dogfish species 
are also caught. Bycatch may include groupers, tilefishes, wahoo, 
skates, rays, and other species.
    NMFS agreed to analyze the ecological and socio-economic impacts of 
the MPAs on HMS fisheries and to consider rulemaking to prohibit shark 
bottom longline gear in the preferred MPAs.
    NMFS used shark bottom longline observer program data from 1994-
2006 to evaluate the impact of the shark bottom longline fishery on the 
snapper-grouper complex within the all of the MPAs initially considered 
by the SAFMC. Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), NMFS plotted 
the locations of all observed sets on the MPAs in the South Atlantic 
region to provide an overview of the number and locations of sets that 
intersected the MPAs. Since most of the MPAs are relatively small (<10 
nautical miles in diameter), the sets tend to either start or end 
outside of the MPAs. In most cases, only a portion of the set 
intersected with an MPA and few if any sets were entirely within the 
MPAs. However, if a set intersected any portion of an MPA, then all 
bycatch reported on that set was counted as occurring in the MPA 
regardless of where on the set it occurred. NMFS used this approach 
because it is not possible to determine where on a set the bycatch 
actually occurred. Of the sets that intersected the MPAs, a large 
portion of each set actually occurred primarily outside the MPAs. As a 
result, the number of bycatch species reported as occurring in the MPAs 
is most likely an overestimate.
    Of the 1,563 observed sets over the approximately twelve-year 
period, a total of 34 sets (2 percent) intersected all of the MPAs 
initially considered by the SAFMC. Of those, only two sets occurred 
entirely within the boundary of the proposed MPAs (one in Snowy Grouper 
Wreck and one in North Florida MPA). A concentration of observed sets 
is apparent in the areas north of Cape Canaveral. The remaining sets 
tend to be more widely spaced and although observer coverage is not 
necessarily uniform, the level of observer coverage was based on the 
level of fishing effort in the different areas. Few sets occurred in 
the MPAs because they are located on the edge of the shelf in deeper 
water where currents are strong and gear may be lost. Most bottom 
longline sets occur shoreward of the 200 m depth contour with the 
exception of the Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA. The few sets that did occur 
in the MPAs should not be considered representative of overall shark 
fishing effort, and may in fact be considered anomalous based on the 
low number of observed sets that occurred in these areas. As very few 
sets occurred in the MPAs, very little shark fishing effort and 
associated bycatch occurred in the MPAs, resulting in minimal 
ecological impacts.
    Using the observer data and fishing effort reported in the Coastal 
Fisheries Logbook, NMFS estimated the total bycatch and expanded 
coastal shark catches within all of the MPAs initially considered by 
the SAFMC to obtain overall estimates of catch within the proposed 
MPAs. Only one of the original MPAs, Snowy Wreck, had sufficient data 
to produce statistically robust expanded bycatch estimates. Based on 
the low estimate of total expanded bycatch, it is likely the shark 
bottom longline fishery has minimal impact on the MPAs. If additional 
data becomes available, expanded take estimates could be calculated for 
those MPAs for which NMFS was unable to provide estimates in the 
current analysis.
    Given that only 34 out of 1,563 observed trips (2 percent) 
intersected all of the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC, the 
impact of shark longline vessels on the snapper grouper complex in the 
MPAs is expected to be minimal. Taking all 34 sets that occurred in all 
the MPAs into account, only 28 grouper were observed caught over a 12 
year period. Of these, only one species that was observed caught (snowy 
grouper) is from a stock that is considered overfished with overfishing 
occurring. Two individuals of this species were caught.
    A total of 1,816 sharks, or 2.6 percent of the total number of 
sharks observed, were observed caught on sets that intersected all of 
the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC. Based on expanded catch 
estimates, a total of 25,395 sharks were estimated to be caught in the 
MPAs each year. If all the MPAs were closed to bottom longline gear, 
this could have a positive impact on shark populations by reducing 
overall mortality and landings of sharks in the South Atlantic. The 
total number of sharks caught annually in the MPAs is likely an 
overestimate because most of the catch recorded on the sets did not 
occur entirely within the MPA as described above. Thus the actual 
number of sharks caught in the MPAs may be lower.
    For the eight proposed MPAs (which were approved by the SAFMC in 
June 2007), only 21 fish (4.8 percent of total) were reported as 
bycatch, and of those, only 13 individuals were comprised of grouper 
species. No snowy grouper were observed caught in the proposed MPAs. 
For sharks, 818 sharks were observed caught in the proposed MPAs (1.6 
percent of total) with the majority of the catch comprised of sandbar 
shark.
    The SAFMC has expressed concern about habitat impacts of shark 
bottom longline gear in the MPAs. In the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS 
completed a review of all HMS (and other state and Federally managed 
gears) that may have an impact on HMS essential fish habitat (EFH). In 
addition, NMFS considered the impact of HMS gears on EFH for other 
Federally managed species. NMFS concluded that bottom longline gear was 
the only gear that has the potential to impact EFH, specifically 
benthic habitat types. However, the degree to which the gear will 
impact EFH also depends on the substrate that makes up the EFH. Certain 
substrates, such as complex coral reef habitat, will be more 
susceptible to damage than will mud and sand substrates because of the 
extended time for habitat recovery. The impact of shark bottom longline 
gear on benthic habitat has not been rigorously studied and conclusions 
are mixed. For example, the 1999 NMFS EFH Workshop categorized the 
impact of bottom longline gear on mud, sand, and hard-bottom as low. 
Bottom longline may have some negative impact if gear is set in more 
complex habitats, such as sponges or coral reefs, however only small 
portions of some of the MPAs are characterized as being comprised of 
hardbottom, and none of the areas are considered to have sponge or 
coral habitat. Bottom longline gear in the shark fishery is primarily 
used in sandy and/or mud habitats where it is expected to have minimal 
impacts.

[[Page 41397]]

    On November 7, 2006, NMFS published a Notice of Intent (71 FR 
65088) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to examine 
management alternatives for revising existing HMS EFH, consider 
additional Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), and to identify 
ways to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse fishing 
impacts on EFH consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 
relevant Federal laws. In Amendment 1 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS 
will consider the impact of bottom longline gear on EFH. Depending on 
the outcome of the analysis, NMFS may consider alternatives to prohibit 
bottom longline gear if it is found to have more than a minimal and not 
temporary impact. Factors that NMFS will consider include the overlap 
of bottom longline gear with EFH, the duration and extent of the 
impact, and the susceptibility of the habitat to damage from bottom 
longline gear consistent with previous guidance issued by NMFS.The 
SAFMC has also expressed concerns about the enforceability of 
prohibiting only snapper grouper bottom longline gear and not shark 
bottom longline gear in the MPAs. Because the gears are virtually 
indistinguishable, and many fishermen hold both types of permits, 
prohibiting only one type of gear could create an enforcement loophole. 
As a result, NMFS proposes to close the MPAs to shark bottom longline 
gear based on enforceability concerns raised by the SAFMC.
    The proposed MPAs are generally small (<10 miles wide) and vessels 
should be able to make minor adjustments to fishing locations to avoid 
the MPAs. Most of the observed shark bottom longline sets occurred 
shoreward of the MPAs. Assuming bycatch rates are higher in the MPAs 
than outside the MPAs, affected vessels may forego some loss of revenue 
from the reduced bycatch of grouper and other species caught on shark 
BLL sets in the proposed MPAs, however, these losses are expected to be 
minimal. Based on the expanded catch estimates, the total shark catches 
for the proposed MPAs were 25,395 and this equates to approximately 
$1,060,083 based on 2006 ex-vessel prices for shark (assuming 5 percent 
of the landing weight was fins and 95 percent of the landings was 
carcasses). Since there are approximately 285 shark LAPs in Florida, 
this would amount to a loss of revenue of approximately $3,722 per 
vessel per year in Florida if vessels are unable to catch as many 
sharks outside the MPAs. Given the small size of the MPAs, it is 
unlikely that vessels would be unable to catch as many sharks outside 
the MPAs.

C. Reporting

    Under the proposed alternative, NMFS would also modify the 
reporting frequency for dealers. The requirement for dealer reports to 
be postmarked within 10 days after each reporting period (1st through 
15th and 16th through last day of month), would be modified to state 
that dealer reports must be received by NMFS not later than 10 days 
after each reporting period (i.e., 25th and 10th of each month). Shark 
dealers would have to submit these reports in advance of the 10th and 
25th of each month to ensure adequate time for delivery, depending on 
the means employed for report submission. Requiring that all dealer 
reports are actually received by NMFS in a more timely fashion would 
provide more frequent reports of shark landings in order to better 
assess quantities of sharks landed and whether or not a closure or 
other management measure is warranted to prevent overfishing. This 
could decrease the likelihood that extensive overharvests of sharks 
would occur. Dealers would still be required to submit reports 
indicating that no sharks were purchased during inactive periods. NMFS 
does not expect any economic impacts as a result of this management 
measure.
    Participants selected to participate in the shark research program 
would be subject to 100 percent observer coverage as a requirement for 
eligibility to participate in the program. Increasing observer coverage 
for vessels participating in this program would result in positive 
ecological impacts because observer reports could be used to monitor 
landings, bycatch, and interactions with protected resources in near 
``real-time.'' Vessels outside the shark research program would still 
be required to carry a NMFS-approved observer if selected and all 
vessels would still be required to complete logbooks within 48 hours of 
fishing activity and then submit the logbooks to NMFS within seven 
days.

D. Seasons

    The proposed alternative would open all shark fisheries on January 
1 of each year dependant upon available quota. There would only be one 
season per year. Upon achieving 80 percent of landings, fishermen would 
be given at least 5 days notice from the date of filing with the Office 
of the Federal Register prior to the closure. Official notice would be 
made via the Federal Register, however, the public would also be 
informed simultaneously via the HMS website and email notice listserve. 
The fishery for non-sandbar LCS and sandbar sharks would both close 
when either quota reaches 80 percent of their respective quota because 
of concerns regarding sandbar shark bycatch that might occur if the 
non-sandbar LCS fishery were kept open after the sandbar shark quota 
had been filled. Closing both fisheries should also prevent individuals 
from mis-identifying sandbar sharks as non-sandbar LCS. Additionally, 
any dealer reports that note ``shark'' landings or unidentified shark 
landings would be counted against the sandbar shark quota.
    The fishery for SCS and pelagic sharks would be closed individually 
upon achieving 80 percent of their respective quotas. Upon achieving 80 
percent of landings, fishermen would be given at least 5 days notice 
from the date of filing with the Office of the Federal Register prior 
to the closure. Official notice would be made via the Federal Register, 
however, the public would also be informed simultaneously via the HMS 
website and email notice listserve. Fishing effort might increase as a 
result of providing this 5-day advance notice as fishermen and dealers 
would know that the season is about to end, however, they would still 
be bound by the retention limits for individual trips.
    Commercial shark fisheries have been managed on a trimester basis 
since 2003 to provide a higher degree of resolution on which to manage 
seasonal fisheries, reduce fishing mortality during peak pupping 
seasons, and address other bycatch concerns. As described above, the 
proposed alternative would implement significantly reduced quotas and 
retention limits for sandbar shark, which is the most valuable shark in 
commercial fisheries because of its fin value. It is estimated that the 
reductions in fishing effort as a result of these reduced retention 
limits and quotas could provide ecological benefits to all shark 
species. The ecological benefits of minimizing fishing mortality during 
peak pupping seasons or having a higher degree of resolution on which 
to manage fisheries seasonally could be replaced by the fact that this 
alternative would implement a significant reduction in the quota for 
sandbar sharks and reduced retention limits for both sandbar sharks and 
non-sandbar LCS.
    Additionally, since all sandbar sharks and some of the non-sandbar 
LCS would be landed by a limited number of vessels participating in a 
shark research program, NMFS would have more information concerning 
when the

[[Page 41398]]

sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS quotas would likely be reached. This 
may result in positive ecological impacts because it should reduce 
overharvests. To ensure collection of information that is needed for 
stock assessments, NMFS would need to ensure data collection throughout 
different areas (e.g., throughout the sharks' range) and also 
throughout the year. However, fishing effort and landings (e.g., 
landings by state fishermen in state waters) that would occur outside 
the shark research program are difficult to predict and negative 
ecological impacts may occur as a result of the sandbar shark or non-
sandbar LCS quota being filled by vessels outside of the shark research 
program as this would mean that fishing under the shark research 
program and collection of biological samples would also cease.
    NMFS is seeking public input specifically in response to two 
questions regarding the potential ecological impacts of two variables 
that could affect season length. First, is the selection of 80 percent 
of any given species/species complex an appropriate threshold for 
taking action to close the fishery? Eighty percent was chosen because 
it is close enough to 100 percent to allow for a limited number of 
trips to be completed after NMFS receives landings reports from dealers 
and takes action to close the fishery without resulting in 
overharvests. Second, is providing five days notice to fishermen before 
the season closes for any species/species complex adequate notice for 
fishermen? Or, conversely, is five days notice too long and should NMFS 
follow the same timeline for sharks as it does for inseason actions for 
bluefin tuna, which is three days from date of filing?

E. Regions

    Under the proposed alternative, NMFS would eliminate the three 
regions and manage all shark fisheries throughout the Atlantic Ocean, 
the Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea as one region. The ecological 
impacts of this change are expected to be neutral. The regions were 
implemented in 2004 to address regional differences in fisheries and to 
provide fishing opportunities for regions that do not have sharks 
present throughout the year. As stated above, in terms of the reduction 
in fishing effort that would result under the quotas and retention 
limits proposed in this alternative are likely to achieve, NMFS does 
not expect that maintaining a regional management scheme would provide 
any additional ecological benefits for Atlantic sharks, protected 
resources, or other bycatch. However, to ensure that NMFS has a variety 
of biological samples from different regions, NMFS would maintain 
adequate regional coverage when selecting vessels for the shark 
research program.
    Eliminating a regional management scheme would likely have negative 
economic impacts on regions that do not have sharks present year round. 
The North Atlantic region could be disadvantaged as a result of 
eliminating a regional management scheme because the quota would likely 
be harvested in southern regions before sharks are present in the North 
Atlantic. Vessels could either move to southern areas to participate in 
the shark fishery in areas where sharks are present year-round or 
redistribute fishing effort to other fisheries. Dealers in the North 
Atlantic region could also be affected, possibly even more so than 
vessels, as the likelihood of having shark products consistently 
available would decrease. However, given that the North Atlantic region 
mostly handles pelagic sharks and few LCS or SCS, any economic impacts 
of removing the regions for LCS and SCS are likely to be slight.

F. Recreational Management Measures

    Finally, under the proposed alternative, recreational anglers (HMS 
Angling, Charter Headboat, and General Category permit holders 
participating in a registered HMS tournament) would only be able to 
possess species of shark that are easy to identify including: 
bonnethead, nurse, tiger, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, 
scalloped hammerhead, lemon, sharpnose, shortfin mako, common thresher, 
oceanic whitetip, and blue sharks. These sharks are easier to identify 
than other shark species and are less likely to be confused with dusky 
or sandbar sharks. Species that were previously authorized, but would 
no longer be allowed to be possessed in recreational fisheries, 
include: sandbar, bull, blacktip, spinner, porbeagle, blacknose, and 
finetooth sharks.
    Ecological benefits of not allowing these species to be landed are 
variable depending upon the species. NMFS is most concerned about 
recreational anglers landing sandbar and dusky sharks and, therefore, 
wants to reduce the potential that one of these sharks could be 
mistakenly identified and then landed. Between 2002 and 2004, there 
were 5,784 sandbar sharks landed in recreational fisheries per year. 
Considering the stock status of sandbar sharks, the ecological impacts 
of further limiting the species that may be possessed in the 
recreational fishery would likely be positive as it would reduce the 
number of sandbar sharks intentionally landed and/or landed due to 
confusion with species that look similar. The ecological impacts of 
prohibiting sandbar sharks would likely be positive for dusky sharks as 
well as it would reduce the number of dusky sharks that are landed 
because they can be mistaken for sandbar sharks. Silky sharks are 
easily confused with dusky sharks, therefore, prohibiting the retention 
of silky sharks could result in fewer dusky sharks being landed. 
Despite the fact that this alternative could result in positive 
ecological impacts, it is not expected to eliminate sandbar mortality 
in the recreational fisheries as there would likely continue to be some 
illegal landings of sandbar sharks and/or some level of post-release 
mortality for fish that are caught and released. NMFS will engage in 
outreach efforts to provide recreational anglers with updated 
regulations and tips for proper identification of shark species that 
are authorized to be possessed in order to improve compliance with 
these measures.
    Participants in recreational shark fisheries could experience 
negative economic impacts as a result of reducing the number of sharks 
that can be legally landed. Charter/headboat (CHB) operators would be 
most affected as a result of these measures as they may see a reduction 
in the number of charters that customers are willing to hire. These 
impacts may be most pronounced in areas where blacktip sharks are 
frequently encountered, including the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
regions. Recreational landings data indicates that there are more 
landings of blacktip sharks than of any other species that could no 
longer be possessed as a result of this alternative. It is presumed 
that blacktip sharks are retained more than any other LCS because of 
the higher quality of their flesh and the fact that they are more 
abundant than other LCS in coastal waters. CHB operators specializing 
in sharks may see the number of charters decline because some fishermen 
insist on keeping blacktip or sandbar sharks. Prohibiting the other 
species (finetooth, silky, bull, blacknose, and porbeagle) is not 
expected to have adverse impacts as these species are not as frequently 
encountered in recreational shark fisheries.
    Tournaments offering prize categories for sharks may also 
experience negative economic impacts as a result of prohibiting six 
additional species of sharks for retention in recreational fisheries. 
The majority of tournaments specializing in sharks are in the North

[[Page 41399]]

Atlantic region, specifically Rhode Island, New York, and 
Massachusetts. In 2005 and 2006, there were 60 tournaments per year 
with prize categories for pelagic sharks. Species most commonly 
targeted in these tournaments including common thresher, oceanic 
whitetip, blue, shortfin mako, and porbeagle. Of these, only porbeagle 
would be prohibited from retention as stocks are overfished. 
Tournaments are generally won by shortfin mako or common thresher, 
therefore, significant economic impacts as a result of prohibiting 
porbeagle retention in shark fishing tournaments are not anticipated.
    NMFS is requesting public comment specifically on the list of 
species that can be easily identified. Specifically, do commenters 
agree that the species proposed are easy to identify? Are there other 
species that should be added to the list? Are there some species that 
should be removed from the list?

G. Impacts on Protected Resources and EFH

    The proposed alternative could have positive impacts on protected 
resources, including sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth 
sawfish as it is expected to reduce overall fishing effort targeting 
shark with gillnet and bottom longline gear while increasing the level 
of observer coverage on a limited number of vessels participating in a 
shark research program. The shark research program proposed in this 
alternative may also provide additional documentation of interactions 
with protected resources via observer reports and possibly the 
opportunity to collect samples from protected resources. Shark 
fishermen outside of the shark research program would likely reduce the 
number, duration, and frequency of trips targeting sharks with bottom 
longline and/or gillnet gear. Furthermore, soak time might also be 
reduced because fishermen would know that they would only be allowed to 
possess 22 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip. Fishing effort will 
decrease the most in the bottom longline fishery as this gear is most 
effective for targeting sandbar shark and most LCS species. Fishing 
effort in the gillnet fishery would likely decrease less than fishing 
effort in the BLL fishery as this fishery mainly targets small coastal 
sharks and non-sandbar LCS, specifically blacktip sharks. There is the 
possibility that some of the current fishing effort in the BLL fishery 
would transfer to the gillnet fishery to target species that have 
larger retention limits (i.e., SCS and blacktip sharks) or to other BLL 
fisheries. It is difficult to predict how fishing effort in longline 
and gillnet fisheries would change as a result of this alternative.
    Ecological impacts to EFH would likely be positive as a result of 
alternative 4. BLL gear is generally regarded as the HMS gear type most 
likely to potentially impact EFH of HMS and/or non-HMS. BLL gear may 
have some negative impact if gear is set in more complex habitats, such 
as hardbottom or coral reefs in the Caribbean or areas with gorgonians, 
or soft corals and sponges in the Gulf of Mexico. BLL gear set with 
cable groundline or heavy monofilament with weights can damage hard or 
soft corals and potentially become entangled in coral reefs upon 
retrieval, resulting in coral breakage due to line entanglement. 
However, the extent to which bottom longline gear is fished in areas 
with coral reef habitat targeting sharks has not been determined.

H. Conclusion

    Overall, alternative 4 is preferred and therefor proposed because 
it implements quotas and retention limits necessary to allow rebuilding 
and prevent overfishing of shark species and maximizes scientific data 
acquisition by continuing a limited research fishery for sandbar shark 
with 100 percent observer coverage. Furthermore, by allowing some 
vessels to participate in the shark research fishery annually, this 
alternative mitigates some of the significant economic impacts (e.g., 
reduced retention limits) that are included in this alternative and 
alternatives 2, 3, and 5 and that are necessary to reduce fishing 
mortality and effort and rebuild overfished shark stocks. This 
alternative ensures that data for stock assessments and life history 
samples continue to be collected while allowing a small pool of 
individuals to continue to collect revenues from sharks. Individuals 
not selected to participate in the shark research program could still 
land 22 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip, which would limit the 
number of trips targeting non-sandbar LCS sharks, while allowing them 
to keep some sharks that would otherwise be discarded.

Analyses of the Other Alternatives Considered

    Under the no action alternative (alternative 1), NMFS would 
maintain the current regulations including, but not limited to, a 
commercial quota of 1,017 mt dw for the LCS complex; 19 prohibited 
species; the mid-Atlantic shark closed area; a 4,000 lb retention limit 
per trip for all LCS; trimester seasons; three regions; and a 
recreational retention limit that allows recreational anglers to 
possess the same species as commercial fishermen. Overall, given the 
latest stock assessments that recommend large reductions in fishing 
mortality, the no action alternative would have negative ecological 
impacts on sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks. In the short-term, the 
social and economic impacts would likely be neutral or slightly 
positive because current fishing effort would remain the same. In the 
long-term, if these species do not rebuild, social and economic impacts 
would likely be negative as the shark species, particularly the sandbar 
shark which is the major species for the fishery, become less abundant. 
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, management measures are needed to 
rebuild overfished stocks and prevent overfishing. Therefore, 
maintaining the LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw, would be inconsistent with 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the recent LCS stock assessment that 
recommended a TAC of 158 mt dw for sandbar sharks in order for this 
species to rebuild by 2070. Because the current fishing effort under 
this alternative could lead to continued overfishing of sandbar, 
porbeagle, and dusky sharks, at a level that could potentially prevent 
these species from rebuilding in the recommended timeframe, NMFS does 
not propose this alternative.
    In addition to the no action alternative (alternative 1) and the 
proposed alternative (alternative 4), NMFS also considered alternatives 
2 and 3, which would establish the same quotas, time/area closures, 
seasons, regions, and recreational retention limits as the proposed 
alternative while changing the commercial retention limits based on the 
permit holders allowed under each alternative. Alternative 2 would 
allow only those fishermen who hold a directed shark LAP to possess 
sharks. Those fishermen could possess 8 sandbar sharks and 21 non-
sandbar LCS per trip. Additionally, under alternative 2, dealers would 
be required to report sharks received within 24 hours of the sale. 
Under alternative 3, fishermen who hold either a directed or incidental 
shark LAP could possess 4 sandbar sharks and 10 non-sandbar LCS per 
trip.
    Both alternatives 2 and 3 could have positive ecological impacts 
for most species of sharks, bycatch, and protected resources as a 
result of significantly reduced retention limits and quotas for sandbar 
sharks and reduced retention limits for non-sandbar LCS. These positive 
ecological impacts would likely be more pronounced in

[[Page 41400]]

alternative 3 than alternative 2 because retention limits are reduced.
    Both alternatives would reduce directed fishing effort for sharks 
significantly, as the limited retention limits for sandbar shark or 
non-sandbar LCS would not correspond to revenues that would equal a 
fishermen's costs for a trip targeting sharks. Sandbar sharks are the 
most lucrative species of LCS and currently they comprise 70 percent of 
landings in the bottom longline fishery. Under alternative 2, because 
the shark fishery for incidental permit holders would be closed, sharks 
caught in pursuit of other species with bottom longline gear or gillnet 
would be discarded, possibly dead. Compared to alternative 2, 
alternative 3 would expand the universe of commercial shark permit 
holders that could possess a limited number of sharks and non-sandbar 
LCS to include incidental permit holders. However, reduced retention 
limits would more closely resemble a shark fishery that is exclusively 
incidental in nature, as the retention limits described in this 
alternative would not correspond to revenues that would equal a 
fishermen's costs for a trip. It is still anticipated that sharks 
caught in excess of the retention limit while in pursuit of other 
species with bottom longline gear or gillnet would be discarded, 
possibly dead. Furthermore, alternative 3 would set a retention limit 
for sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS that is the same for both 
directed and incidental permit holders, which would reduce the value of 
a directed shark permit.
    As in the proposed alternative, eliminating regions and seasons in 
these alternatives represents an economic disadvantage to the North 
Atlantic region as sharks are not present in these waters year-round, 
meaning the quota may be filled in some years before sharks are present 
in these areas. However, as fishermen in the North Atlantic region land 
more pelagic sharks than LCS or SCS, NMFS does not expect eliminating 
regions and seasons to have a significant economic impact on the North 
Atlantic region. Interactions with protected resources may decrease 
under both alternatives as a result of less bottom longline and gillnet 
fishing effort targeting sharks; however, it is assumed that some of 
this fishing effort would be displaced to other gillnet and bottom 
longline fisheries in which participants are permitted.
    Alternative 2 is not proposed because landings of all sharks by 
incidental permit holders would have to be discarded and because it 
would place significant reporting burden on shark dealers. 
Additionally, alternative 2 does not provide as much assurance that 
overfishing of sandbar and dusky sharks would not continue compared to 
other alternatives because of increased retention limits for non-
sandbar LCS and the increased likelihood that sandbars and dusky sharks 
would be caught incidentally and discarded dead. Thus, this alternative 
would not achieve National Standard 1 to rebuild overfished species or 
prevent overfishing (e.g., sandbar and dusky sharks) nor would this 
alternative achieve National Standard 9, to minimize bycatch to the 
extent practicable.
    Alternative 3 is not proposed because it diminishes the economic 
and historical significance of the directed fishery and essentially 
makes the directed shark LAP equal in value to the incidental shark 
fishing permit. Furthermore, given the reduced retention limits in this 
alternative, the directed shark fishery would essentially be 
eliminated, resulting in significant economic impacts. As with 
alternative 2, this alternative would not achieve National Standard 1 
to rebuild overfished species or prevent overfishing (e.g., sandbar and 
dusky sharks) nor would this alternative achieve National Standard 9, 
to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. Additionally, the 
limited data attained on shark interactions from both alternatives 2 
and 3 would compromise the ability to maintain fishery dependent data 
series for conducting stock assessments, which are necessary in order 
to have the best scientific data (National Standard 2). Preferred 
alternative 4, the proposed alternative, would likely accomplish the 
necessary reductions in quota, retention limits, and fishing effort to 
prevent overfishing and allow stocks to rebuild while allowing for the 
collection of valuable scientific data, allowing the continuation of a 
very limited but directed shark fishery, allowing some landings of non-
sandbar LCS, and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable.
    The last alternative considered (alternative 5) would close all 
Atlantic shark fisheries. Under this alternative, NMFS would preclude 
commercial and recreational fishermen from possessing or landing any 
shark species. This alternative would have the most significant 
positive ecological impacts for sharks, protected resources, and EFH of 
the alternatives considered in this rulemaking. However, closing the 
Atlantic shark fishery would also incur the most significant economic 
impacts on U.S. shark fishermen, shark dealers, shark tournament 
operators, and others involved in supporting industries. This 
alternative is not proposed at this time because it would cause severe 
economic and social impacts to fishing communities along the east coast 
and Gulf of Mexico compared to the other alternatives considered, 
contrary to National Standard 8 (which requires consideration of 
economic and social data to minimize adverse economic impacts on 
communities, to the extent practicable). Furthermore, by closing the 
shark fishery, NMFS would lose a valuable source of fishery dependent 
data that would influence the ability to conduct future shark stock 
assessments. Recent stock assessments for sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle 
sharks indicate that these species are overfished. The primary 
objective of this amendment is to reduce fishing mortality for these 
species and allow them the opportunity to rebuild. There are numerous 
species of shark that are not overfished or experiencing overfishing, 
and therefore, do not warrant a full closure of the Atlantic shark 
fishery at this time. Preferred alternative 4, the proposed 
alternative, would strike a balance between preventing overfishing and 
allowing stocks to rebuild, while considering the economic needs of the 
shark fishing community and the data needs of future stock assessments 
by allowing some retention of sharks.

Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on any of the alternatives or analyses 
described in this proposed rule and in the draft Amendment 2. NMFS is 
also requesting comments on specific items related to those 
alternatives to clarify certain sections of the regulatory text or in 
analyzing potential impacts of the alternatives. Specifically, NMFS 
requests comments on:
    (1) The proposed list of species that may be taken by recreational 
anglers. NMFS is proposing that only species that are easy to identify 
be allowed to be landed by recreational anglers. Do commenters agree 
that the species proposed are easy to identify? Are there other species 
that are easily identified that should be added? Are there some species 
that should be removed?;
    (2) The amount of time proposed to provide notice of fishing 
closures. NMFS is proposing to close the shark fisheries with at least 
five days notice from date of filing with the Office of the Federal 
Register. Is that an adequate amount of time for fishermen to receive 
notice? Would a shorter timeframe (e.g., three days from date of 
filing, similar to the notice given for inseason actions with the 
bluefin tuna General Category) be more appropriate?; and,

[[Page 41401]]

    (3) The 80 percent trigger for closing commercial shark fisheries. 
NMFS is proposing to close shark fisheries when dealer reports indicate 
that landings are at 80 percent of the available quota. NMFS is 
proposing this buffer given the timeframe for dealer reporting (twice a 
month), the time needed to announce the closure, and the need to close 
the fishery before the quota is reached. Eighty percent was chosen 
because it is close to 100 percent to allow for a limited number of 
trips to be completed after NMFS receives landings reports from dealers 
and to take action to close the fishery without resulting in 
overharvests. Is this buffer sufficient? Should it be larger or 
smaller?
    Comments may be submitted via writing, email, fax, or phone (see 
ADDRESSES). Comments may also be submitted at a public hearing (see 
Public Hearings and Special Accommodations below). All comments must be 
submitted no later than 5 p.m. on October 10, 2007.

Public Hearings and Special Accommodations

    As listed in the table below, NMFS will hold 10 public hearings to 
receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the 
public regarding this proposed rule and the draft HMS FMP. These 
hearings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Heather Halter at (301) 713-2347 at least 7 days 
prior to the hearing date. NMFS has requested time to present this 
proposed rule and the draft Amendment 2 to the five Atlantic Regional 
Fishery Management Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission at their meetings during the public comment period. Please 
see their meeting notices for times and locations. NMFS also 
tentatively anticipates holding a meeting of the HMS Advisory Panel on 
October 2 - 4, 2007, in Silver Spring, Maryland. The actual dates and 
location will be announced in a future Federal Register notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Hearing       Hearing
             Date                   Time        Location       Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/8/07                         6 - 8:50 p.m.  Manahawkin    129 North
                                               Public        Main St.,
                                               Library       Manahawkin,
                                                             NJ 08050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/8/07                         6 - 9 p.m.     SEFSC,        3500 Delwood
                                               Panama City   Beach Dr.,
                                               Laboratory    Panama
                                                             City, FL
                                                             32408
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/14/07                        6 - 9 p.m.     Bayou Black   3688
                                               Recreationa   Southdown
                                               l Center      Mandalay
                                                             Rd., Houma,
                                                             LA 70360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/22/07                        6:30 - 9:30    City of       300
                                p.m.           Madeira       Municipal
                                               Beach         Dr.,
                                                             Madeira
                                                             Beach, FL
                                                             33708
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/23/07                        5:30 - 8:30    Fort Pierce   101 Melody
                                p.m.           Library       Lane, Fort
                                                             Pierce, FL
                                                             34950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/29/07                        6 - 9 p.m.     Ocean Pines   11107
                                               Public        Cathell
                                               Library       Rd.,
                                                             Berlin, MD
                                                             21811
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/5/07                         6 - 9 p.m.     University    Visitor's
                                               of Texas,     Center, 750
                                               Marine        Channel
                                               Science       View Dr.,
                                               Institute     Port
                                                             Aransas, TX
                                                             78373
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/6/07                         5 - 8 p.m.     Islamorada    81500
                                               Public        Overseas
                                               Library       Highway,
                                                             Islamorada,
                                                             FL 33036
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/10/07                        6 - 9 p.m.     Manteo Town   407 Budleigh
                                               Hall          St.,
                                                             Manteo, NC
                                                             27954
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/17/07                        5:30 - 8:30    Portsmouth    175 Parrott
                                p.m            Public        Ave.,
                                               Library       Portsmouth,
                                                             NH 03801
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public 
hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each 
public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules 
(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be 
called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to 
speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and 
attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative 
will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of 
the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of 
the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to 
respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to 
leave the hearing.

Classification

    This proposed rule is published under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. At this time, NMFS has 
preliminarily determined that the proposed rule and related draft 
Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP are consistent with the 
national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the 
Act, and other applicable law.
    This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public 
reporting burden for the HMS exempted fishing permit, scientific 
research permit, display permit, shark research permit, and letter of 
authorization information collection is estimated to average 2 hours 
per scientific research plan; 40 minutes per application, including the 
shark research permit application; 15 minutes per request for amendment 
to the exempted fishing permit; 1 hour per interim report; 2 minutes 
per ``no catch'' report; 40 minutes per annual report; 5 minutes per 
departure notification regarding

[[Page 41402]]

collection of display animals; 10 minutes per notification call for 
observer coverage for the shark research fishery; and 2 minutes per tag 
application. These burden estimates include the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection information.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of NMFS, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other 
aspects of the collection of information to Michael Clark, the Highly 
Migratory Species Management Division, at the ADDRESSES above, and by 
e-mail to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the 
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and 
the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this 
section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 
summary of the IRFA follows. The full IRFA is contained in Amendment 2. 
Copies of Amendment 2 are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the 
Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 
applicable law, to implement management measures for the Atlantic shark 
fishery that address the results of the 2005/2006 large coastal shark 
stock assessment, the 2006 dusky shark stock assessment, and the 
Canadian porbeagle shark stock assessment.
    In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the objectives of this proposed rulemaking are to:(1) implement 
rebuilding plans for sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks; (2) provide 
an opportunity for the sustainable harvest of blacktip and other 
sharks, as appropriate; (3) prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks; (4) 
analyze bottom longline time/area closures and take necessary action to 
maintain or modify the closures, as appropriate; and (5) improve, to 
the extent practicable, data collections or data collection programs.
    Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the rule would apply. NMFS considers 
all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they either had 
average annual receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, 
average annual receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 
100 or fewer employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees 
for seafood processors. These are the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) size standards for defining a small versus large business entity 
in this industry.
    The proposed rule would apply to the 529 commercial shark permit 
holders in the Atlantic shark fishery based on an analysis of permit 
holders on May 11, 2007. Of these permit holders, 231 have directed 
shark permits and 298 hold incidental shark permits. Not all permit 
holders are active in the fishery in any given year. NMFS estimates 
that there are 143 vessels with directed shark permits and 155 vessels 
with shark incidental permits that could be considered actively engaged 
in fishing, since they reported landing at least one shark in the 
Coastal Fisheries Logbook from 2003 to 2005.
    In addition, the reporting requirements in the proposed 
alternatives would also apply to Federal shark dealers. As of May 22, 
2007, there were a total of 269 Atlantic shark dealer permit holders. 
Based on NMFS understanding of HMS dealers, NMFS assumes that each of 
these dealers would be considered a small business with 100 or fewer 
employees.
    The proposed measures being considered may also impact the types of 
services HMS CHB permit holders may provide. HMS CHB permit holders are 
businesses directly affected by this rule because limitations on the 
species that may be taken could affect the number of customers and the 
amount they can ask passengers to pay for a certain trip. As of April 
25, 2007, there were 4,245 HMS CHB permit holders. It is unknown what 
portion of these permit holders actively participate in shark fishing 
or market shark fishing services for recreational anglers. NMFS 
considers all of these permit holders to be small entities.
    In addition, some businesses that hold tournaments, such as marinas 
or specialized tournament organizers, are also considered small 
entities. HMS tournaments are required to register with NMFS. As such, 
NMFS has estimates on the number of HMS tournaments. However, NMFS may 
not necessarily know the number of businesses behind the tournament 
name and contact. Tournaments offering prize categories for sharks may 
also experience negative economic impacts as a result of prohibiting 
six additional species of sharks for retention in recreational 
fisheries in alternatives suites 2 through 4, as well as alternative 5 
which would allow no possession of any sharks and only allow for catch 
and release fishing. The majority of tournaments specializing in sharks 
are in the North Atlantic region, specifically Rhode Island, New York, 
and Massachusetts. In 2005 and 2006, there were 60 tournaments per year 
with prize categories for pelagic sharks. Alternative 5 would apply to 
all tournaments that had a prize category for sharks. There have been 
79 tournaments per year that had a prize category for sharks from 2005-
2006. The majority of these tournaments target pelagic sharks and are 
held in the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions.
    Under section 603(b)(4), Agencies are required to describe any new 
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The 
proposed alternative would require modifying existing reporting and 
record-keeping requirements. The research program component in this 
proposed rule would require modifications to the existing Exempted 
Fishing Permit (EFP) program and dealer reporting requirements. Other 
compliance requirements are described in the discussion of alternatives 
set forth below.
    The proposed rule would modify the reporting frequency for dealers. 
The current requirement for dealer reports to be post-marked within 10 
days after each reporting period (1st through 15th and 16th through 
last day of month), would be modified to state that dealer reports must 
be received by NMFS not later than 10 days after each reporting period 
(i.e., 25th and 10th of each month). Shark, swordfish, and tuna dealers 
would have to submit these reports in advance of the 10th and 25th of 
each month to ensure adequate time for delivery, depending on the means 
employed for report submission.

[[Page 41403]]

Requiring that all dealer reports are actually received by NMFS in a 
more timely fashion would provide more frequent reports of shark 
landings in order to better assess quantities of sharks landed and 
whether or not a closure or other management measures are warranted to 
prevent overfishing. Dealers would still be required to submit reports 
indicating that no sharks were purchased during inactive periods. 
Requirements for vessel logbooks and observer coverage would remain 
unchanged. Additional burden is not expected as a result of modifying 
the regulations to ensure that dealer reports are actually received 
within 10 days.
    The proposed rule would also create a limited shark research 
program that would result in changes to existing reporting 
requirements. Entry into the proposed shark research program would 
require vessels to submit an application, which would add to the 
reporting burden for those vessels wishing to apply. Applicants 
selected to participate in the shark research program under this 
alternative would also be subject to 100 percent observer coverage as a 
requirement for eligibility to participate in the program. In addition, 
selected vessels would continue to report in their normal logbook in 
addition to the observer program. Vessels in the shark research 
program, however, would not need to report in a similar way as the 
other holders of EFPs even though they are being issued permits under 
the EFP program. For example, vessels in the research fishery would not 
be required to submit interim or annual reports describing their 
fishing activities. Rather, they would only be required to submit 
logbook per current regulations. Vessels outside the shark research 
program would still be required to carry an observer if selected and 
all vessels would still be required complete logbooks within 48 hours 
of fishing activity and then submit the logbooks to NMFS within seven 
days.
    Under section 603(b)(5) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies 
must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. Fishermen, 
dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of 
international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, 
but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas 
Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. NMFS does not believe that the new regulations proposed 
to be implemented would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 
relevant regulations, federal or otherwise.
    Under section 603(c), agencies are required to describe any 
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 
objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These 
impacts are discussed below and in Amendment 2. Additionally, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c) (1)-(4)) lists four 
general categories of ``significant'' alternatives that would assist an 
agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories 
of alternatives are: (1) establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 
requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of 
performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from 
coverage of the rule for small entities.
    In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent 
with Magunson-Stevens Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS 
cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only 
for small entities because all the entities affected are considered 
small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall 
under the first and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not 
know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the 
aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, 
complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no 
alternatives considered under the third category. As described below, 
NMFS analyzed five different alternatives suites in this proposed 
rulemaking. The discussion below provides justification for selection 
of the proposed alternative to achieve the desired objective.
    As described in the earlier in the preamble, the alternatives 
considered and analyzed have been grouped into five alternative suites. 
Alternative 1 would maintain the current Atlantic shark fishery (no 
action). Alternative 2 would allow only directed shark permit holders 
to land sharks whereas Alternative 3 would allow directed and 
incidental shark permit holders to land sandbar and non sandbar LCS as 
well as SCS and pelagic sharks. Alternative 4 would establish a program 
where vessels with directed or incidental shark permits could 
participate in a research fishery for sandbar sharks. Only vessels 
participating in this program could land sandbar sharks. Vessels not 
participating in the research program could land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, 
and pelagic sharks. Finally, alternative 5 would shut down the 
commercial Atlantic shark fishery and only allow a catch and release 
recreational shark fishery. The proposed alternative is suite 4.

A. Alternative Suite 1

    Alternative 1, the no action alternative, would not likely result 
in any significant new economic impacts to small businesses in the HMS 
Atlantic shark fishery if the current LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw, in 
conjunction with the 4,000 lb LCS directed shark permit trip limit, is 
maintained. Under this alternative, the current fishing effort would 
not likely change, which could lead to economic benefits from reduced 
market uncertainty for fishermen and related businesses in the short 
term. If gross revenues for directed and incidental permit holders is 
averaged across the approximately 298 active directed and incidental 
shark permit holders, then the average annual gross revenues per shark 
fishing vessel is just over $14,000. However, long term, negative 
economic impacts could occur if current fishing mortality of sandbar 
sharks, an economically important species, is not decreased as 
recommended by the LCS stock assessment, and this species continues to 
be overfished.
    The no action alternative would maintain the existing closures and 
would not add any new closures. The three management regions would also 
remain unchanged. There would also be no additional reporting 
requirements. Alternative 1 would also maintain the trimester seasons, 
which provides fishermen and dealers with more open seasons. With an 
annual LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw, spreading the seasons out over the 
calendar year could potentially result in greater economic stability 
for fishermen and associated communities. However, if quotas are 
reduced to comply with the recommendations from the LCS stock 
assessment, trimester seasons could become less economically stable for 
fishermen and dealers because of the reduced amount of quota and 
fishing effort during the calendar year. Maintaining existing closures, 
reporting requirements, and management regions would likely have little 
to no economic impacts on effected small businesses.
    Alternative 1 would also maintain the current bag limit for HMS 
Angling permit holders at one shark greater than 54 inches per vessel 
per trip as well as one sharpnose and one bonnethead

[[Page 41404]]

shark (both of which are in the SCS complex) per person per trip. This 
would likely result in no new economic impacts for businesses operating 
recreational fishing charter trips targeting sharks and shark fishing 
tournaments in the short term.
    Overall, alternative 1 would likely have the lowest economic impact 
on small businesses. However, this alternative would likely not meet 
the objectives of this action. Maintaining the LCS quota of 1,017 mt 
dw, would be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the recent 
LCS stock assessment that recommended a TAC of 158.3 mt dw for sandbar 
sharks for this species to rebuild by 2070. Current fishing effort, 
under the no action alternative, could lead to continued overfishing of 
sandbar, porbeagle and dusky sharks, which could potentially prevent 
these species from rebuilding in the recommended timeframe. As a 
result, this alternative was not selected.

B. Alternative Suite 2

    Alternative 2 would allow only directed shark permit holders to 
land sharks. In addition, this alternative would remove sandbar sharks 
from the LCS complex and establish a separate category for sandbar 
sharks from the LCS complex. Incidental shark permit holders would be 
affected by alternative 2. As of 2007, there were 220 shark directed, 
285 shark incidental, and 336 shark dealers permit holders. NMFS 
considers the 143 vessels with directed shark permits and 155 vessels 
with shark incidental permits that reported landing at least one shark 
in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook from 2003 to 2005 as active.
    On average, directed permit holders landed 1,571,851 lb dw of 
sandbar sharks and 1,210,643 of non-sanbar LCS from 2003 to 2005 in the 
Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks. In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is 
equivalent to gross revenues of $3,744,032 (assuming 5 percent of the 
landings are fins and 95 percent of the landings are carcass weight). 
If gross revenues for directed permit holders are averaged across the 
approximately 143 active directed shark permit holders, then the 
average annual gross revenues per shark fishing vessel is just over 
$26,000 from shark revenues. Under alternative 2, gross revenues for 
directed permit holders would be estimated to be $1,026,032 from shark 
fishing. This is a 73 percent overall reduction in gross revenues 
compared to 2003 to 2005. These reduced gross revenues averaged across 
the 143 active directed permit holders are just over $7,000 per 
directed shark fishing vessel. This estimated reduction in revenue from 
shark landings could affect the profitability and even viability of 
some marginal operations. Operations that have permits in other 
fisheries and can easily diversify are less likely to be as affected as 
those marginal operations. Nevertheless, the profitability of all 
directed shark fishing vessels would likely by reduced. Because the 
states of Florida, New Jersey, and North Carolina have the most 
directed shark permits, these states would be most negatively impacted 
by alternative 2.
    In addition, retention of sandbar sharks on pelagic longline (PLL) 
gear would be prohibited under alternative 2. On average, 80,825 lb dw 
of sandbar sharks were reported landed on PLL gear by directed shark 
permit holders from 2003 to 2005 (HMS Logbook). In 2006 ex-vessel 
prices, this is equivalent to $106,802 in gross revenues. Given an 
average of 16.7 vessels landed sandbar sharks with PLL gear from 2003 
to 2005, prohibition of sandbar sharks on PLL gear could result in a 
loss of gross revenues of $6,395 per vessel.
    Gross revenues under the no action revenue were based on a 4,000 lb 
dw LCS trip limit for directed shark permit holders. The average number 
of sandbars and non-sandbar LCS landed per trip was 35 sandbars and 32 
non-sandbar LCS for all gear types reported in the Coastal Fisheries 
and HMS Logbooks. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to 
$3,358 per trip. Revenue estimates on a regional trip basis were also 
based on species composition data attained from the BLL observer 
program data. Observer data indicate that between 2005 and 2006, 69 
sandbar sharks and 35 non-sandbar LCS were caught per trip in the South 
Atlantic region, and 30 sandbar sharks and 83 non-sandbar LCS were 
caught per trip in the Gulf of Mexico region. Based on these numbers 
and 2006 ex-vessel prices, South Atlantic trips averaged $4,743 per 
trip and Gulf of Mexico trips averaged $5,853 per trip.
    Under alternative 2, the retention limits would be 8 sandbar sharks 
per trip and 21 non-sandbar LCS per trip. Non-sandbar LCS retention 
limits are based on the average ratio of sandbars to non-sandbar LCS 
caught in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to limit 
sandbar shark discards by fishermen deploying non-selective gear. In 
the Gulf of Mexico, the ratio of sandbars to other LCS caught is 1:4, 
which based on an 8 sandbar sharks per trip retention limit, would 
equal 32 non-sandbar LCS per trip. However, such a high non-sandbar LCS 
retention limit would result in a sandbar discards in the South 
Atlantic (65.3 mt dw). Therefore, a 21 non-sandbar LCS per trip 
retention limit was set to balance discards versus catch in the two 
regions. This results in approximately five sandbar sharks being caught 
in the Gulf of Mexico region when the non-sandbar LCS retention limit 
per trip is filled (and therefore, only 86.1 mt dw of the sandbar quota 
would be filled). Therefore, gross revenues on a trip basis are 
estimated to be $1,262 of gross revenue per trip in the South Atlantic 
and $1,333 of gross revenue per trip in the Gulf of Mexico. From 2003 
to 2005, there were 124 vessels that averaged more than 324 lb dw (or 
eight sandbar sharks) of sandbar shark per trip. Therefore, these 
vessels would be most negatively affected by retention limits under 
alternative 2.
    On average, 66 incidental permit holders landed 19,066 lb dw per 
year of sandbar sharks and 39,995 lb dw per year of non-sandbar LCS 
from 2003 to 2005 in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks. Using 2006 
ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to gross revenues of $80,558 
(assuming 5 percent of the landings are fins and 95 percent of the 
landings are carcass weight). Gross revenues averaged across the 66 
vessels with incidental permits landing sharks were just over $1,221 
per vessel. Since incidental permit holders would not be able to land 
any sharks under alternative 2, the 66 active vessels would be most 
negatively affected by this alternative. The states of Florida, 
Louisiana, New Jersey, and North Carolina had the most incidental shark 
permit holders as of 2007 (144, 37, 20, and 16, respectively); 
therefore, these states would be most negatively impacted by 
alternative 2.
    Alternative 2 also includes increasing dealer reporting to 24 hours 
of when shark products were purchased. There could be economic impacts 
to dealers as a result of the increased reporting requirement 
associated with this alternative. Reporting burden would be increased 
significantly for Atlantic shark dealers as a result of this 
alternative resulting in negative economic impacts. Currently, shark 
dealer reports must be submitted bimonthly, regardless of whether or 
not the dealer actually purchased any shark products. Reporting 
frequency would be increased to 24 hours of when shark products were 
purchased. While the increased reporting burden would not impact shark 
dealer expenditures per se, it would result in more time spent 
submitting dealer reports, which represents an opportunity cost for 
dealers because that would be time they could not spend conducting 
other activities related to their business. Furthermore, in order to 
comply with

[[Page 41405]]

the requirement that dealer reports must be received by NMFS within 24 
hours, it is assumed that dealers would have to submit dealer reports 
electronically or via fax. Dealers that do not currently possess a 
computer or fax machine would have to purchase one of these items. The 
increased reporting burden implemented in this alternative would be 
subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Reporting 
requirements for shark vessel permit holders, including the need to 
take an observer if selected and the need to submit vessel logbooks 
within seven days of completing a fishing trip would not be modified, 
resulting in neutral economic impacts.
    The impacts of other provisions of alternative 2 are the same as in 
alternative 4, discussed below, which is the proposed alternative for 
this proposed rule. These provisions include: maintaining the 60 mt 
shark display and research quota; placement of porbeagle sharks on the 
prohibited list; quota carryover limited to 50 percent of base quota 
for species not overfished; no carryover for overfished, overfishing or 
unknown species; sharks fins must remain on the shark; removal of 
regions and seasons; and limiting the shark species that can be landed 
recreationally.
    This alternative was not selected for two primary reasons. First, 
this alternative does not address the impacts from continued 
incidentally caught sandbar sharks by vessels targeting other species. 
These vessels will likely continue to incidentally catch sandbar 
sharks, but then under this alternative those sharks would be required 
to be discarded. These discards would reduce potential revenues and 
possibly operating efficiency of vessels possessing incidental shark 
permits. Regulatory discards would likely lead to increases in 
mortality and slow efforts to end overfishing. Second, the 24 hour 
dealer reporting that would be required to effectively manage quotas 
would result in a significant increase in reporting burden for dealers. 
This alternative would therefore not minimize the economic cost to 
dealers in comparison to the proposed alternative.

C. Alternative Suite 3

    Alternative 3 would allow directed and incidental shark permit 
holders to land sandbar shark and non sandbar LCS as well as SCS and 
pelagic sharks. Therefore, the available sandbar and non-sandbar LCS 
quota would be spread over a larger universe of commercial permit 
holders. However, unlike the no action or alternative 2, the retention 
limits for sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS would be the same for 
both directed and incidental permit holders. Since directed permit 
holders presumably make a greater percentage of their gross revenues 
from shark landings, they are expected to have larger negative 
socioeconomic impacts compared to incidental permit holders. Since the 
states of Florida, New Jersey, and North Carolina have the most 
directed permit holders, NMFS anticipates that these states would have 
the largest negative socioeconomic impacts under alternative 3. As with 
alternative 2, shark dealers could also experience negative impacts due 
to the reduction in the sandbar shark and other LCS quotas and 
retention limits, which would reduce the overall amount of sharks being 
landed.
    As stated under alternative 2, on average, directed permit holders 
landed 1,571,851 lb dw of sandbar sharks and 1,210,643 of non-sandbar 
LCS from 2003 to 2005 in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks. In 
2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to gross revenues of 
$3,744,032 (assuming 5 percent of the landings are fins and 95 percent 
of the landings are carcass weight). However, under alternative 3, the 
available sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS quota would be spread over 
directed and incidental permit holders. Based on past effort, it was 
assumed 1,108 trips could be made by directed permit holders. This is 
78 percent of the total expected fishing effort. Therefore, given 105.9 
mt dw (233,467 lb dw) of the sandbar shark quota and 229.2 mt dw 
(505,294 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota that could be landed under 
alternative 3, approximately 83 mt dw (183,073 lb dw) of sandbar shark 
quota and 180 mt dw (396,225 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota are 
anticipated to be landed by directed permit holders. Based on 2006 ex-
vessel prices, this is equivalent to $793,338 gross revenues for 
directed permit holders. This is a 79 percent overall reduction in 
gross revenues compared to 2003 to 2005 (gross revenues based on 
current directed permit holders' landings were $3,744,032). Again, 
since the states of Florida, New Jersey, and North Carolina have the 
most directed permit holders, NMFS anticipates that these states would 
experience the largest negative socioeconomic impacts under alternative 
3.
    As stated in alternative 2, the no action revenue was based on a 
4,000 lb dw LCS trip limit for directed shark permit holders with 
average South Atlantic trips at $4,743 per trip and average Gulf of 
Mexico trips at $5,853 per trip. Under alternative 3, the retention 
limits would be 4 sandbar sharks per trip and 10 non-sandbar LCS per 
trip. However, since the ratio of sandbar sharks to non-sandbar LCS 
caught in the Gulf of Mexico is 1:4, NMFS estimates that approximately 
3 sandbar sharks would be caught in the Gulf of Mexico region when the 
10 non-sandbar LCS retention limit per trip is filled (10 non-sandbar 
LCS / 4 = 2.5 sandbar sharks). Therefore, gross revenues on a trip 
basis are estimated to be $610 per trip in the South Atlantic and $670 
per trip in the Gulf of Mexico. From 2003 to 2005, there were 128 
vessels that averaged more than 163 lb dw (or 4 sandbar sharks) of 
sandbar per trip. Therefore, these vessels would be most negatively 
affected by retention limits under alternative 3.
    On average, incidental permit holders landed 19,066 lb dw of 
sandbar sharks and 39,995 lb dw of non-sandbar LCS from 2003 to 2005 in 
the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks. In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this 
is equivalent to gross revenues of $80,558 (assuming 5 percent of the 
landings are fins and 95 percent of the landings are carcass weight). 
The available sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS quotas would be 
averaged over directed and incidental permit holders under alternative 
3. Based on past effort, it was assumed 305 trips could be made by 
incidental permit holders. This is 22 percent of the expected fishing 
effort. Therefore, given the 105.9 mt dw (233,467 lb dw) of the sandbar 
shark quota and 229.2 mt dw (505,294 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS 
quota that could be landed under alternative 3, approximately 23 mt dw 
(50,395 lb dw) of the sandbar shark quota and 50 mt dw (109,069 lb dw) 
of the non-sandbar LCS quota are anticipated to be landed by incidental 
permit holders. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to 
$218,383 gross revenues for incidental permit holders. This would 
result in gross revenues that are 2.7 times higher compared to 2003 to 
2005 (gross revenues based on current incidental permit holders' 
landings were $80,558).
    This increase in gross revenues is due to the increase in retention 
limits for incidental permit holders. Under the no action alternative, 
incidental permit holders can retain 5 sharks from the LCS complex. 
However, under alternative 3, incidental permit holders would be able 
to retain 4 sandbar sharks and 10 non-sandbar LCS or 14 LCS total. This 
retention limit is almost 3 times higher than what is currently allowed 
under the no action. On average, incidental permit holders have been 
landing 2 sandbar sharks and 3 non-sandbar LCS

[[Page 41406]]

per trip. Based on 2006 ex-vessel prices, this is equivalent to $248 
per trip. However, under alternative 3, incidental permit holders would 
make equivalent gross revenues per trip as directed permit holders: 
$610 per trip in the South Atlantic and $670 per trip in the Gulf of 
Mexico. This would result in gross revenues for incidental permit 
holders that are 2 to 3 times higher than gross revenues in 2003 to 
2005 depending on future fishing effort and catch composition. 
Therefore, there would be positive economic impacts for incidental 
permit holders under alternative 3. Since approximately 66 vessels with 
incidental permit holders landed sandbar sharks or non-sandbar LCS in 
2003 to 2005 in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks, these 66 
vessels would have the largest economic benefits under alternative 3. 
However, if sharks become profitable for incidental permit holders 
under alternative 3, then more vessels with incidental permits may 
actively land sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS in the future. 
Finally, the states of Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, and North 
Carolina had the most incidental shark permit holders in 2007. 
Therefore, these states would see the largest socioeconomic benefits 
for incidental permit holders under alternative 3.
    The other provisions of alternative 3 are the same as in 
alternative 4, which is the proposed alternative for this proposed 
rule. These provisions include maintaining the 60 mt shark display and 
research quote; placement of porbeagle sharks on the prohibited list; 
quota carryover limited to 50 percent of base quota for species not 
overfished; no carryover for overfished, overfishing or unknown 
species; sharks fins must remain on the shark; dealer reports received 
within 10 of purchase; removal of regions and seasons; and limiting the 
shark species that can be landed recreationally.
    This alternative was not selected as the proposed alternative 
primarily based on the economic impacts it would potentially result in 
and since it does not meet some of the ecological objectives of this 
rule. Despite the time per area closures, alternative 3 would have a 
smaller reduction in dead discards of dusky sharks compared to 
alternative 2 since sandbar sharks would be allowed to be retained on 
PLL gear under alternative 3.
    Negative economic impacts under alternative 3 are expected for 
directed permit holders (79-percent reduction in gross revenues 
compared to the no action) as a result of the four sandbar per vessel 
per trip retention limits. Given the retention limits for sandbar shark 
and non-sandbar LCS are significantly lower than the limit under the no 
action (91 and 69-percent reduction in sandbar and non-sandbar LCS 
retention limits, respectively for directed permit holders), it is 
anticipated that there would be no directed shark fishery as a result 
of alternative 3. While an observer program would still operate under 
alternative 3, without a directed shark fishery, it is anticipated that 
the fishery dependent data collection would be limited, which could 
compromise data collection for future stock assessments. Alternative 4 
would likely accomplish the necessary reductions in quota, retention 
limits, and fishing effort to prevent overfishing and allow stocks to 
rebuild while collecting valuable scientific data for NMFS. Therefore, 
due to concerns over dusky discards, quota monitoring, and data 
collection, NMFS is not preferring alternative 3 at this time.

D. Alternative Suite 4

    Alternative 4, the proposed alternative, would establish a program 
where a limited number of vessels with directed or incidental shark 
permits could participate in a small research fishery for sandbar 
sharks that would harvest the entire 116.6 mt dw sandbar quota. There 
would be 100 percent observer coverage on research vessel. Only vessels 
participating in this program could land sandbar sharks. Vessels not 
participating in the research program could land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, 
and pelagic sharks.
    Alternative 4 was selected as the proposed alternative because it 
meets the objectives of this proposed rule while minimizing some of the 
economic impacts. As detailed in the economic analysis in Amendment 2, 
it is estimated that vessels in the shark research fishery could make 
$490,411 in gross revenues of sandbar and non-sandbar LCS landings. 
Depending on the number of vessels selected for the shark research 
fishery, NMFS estimates that these vessels will generate higher 
revenues from sharks than the average vessel under the other 
alternatives suites. If less than 18 vessels are selected for the shark 
research fishery, then average gross shark revenues per vessel per year 
could potentially be higher under the proposed than under the other 
alternatives. However, the vessels operating outside of the research 
fishery would have an estimated 491 mt dw (1,082,459 lb dw) of non-
sandbar LCS quota available to them depending on non-sandbar LCS 
landings in the shark research fishery. In 2006 ex-vessel prices, this 
is equivalent to $1,502,994 in gross revenues. Divided by the remaining 
vessels (298 active directed and incidental shark permit holders - 18 = 
280) it is estimated that the average gross revenues from shark per 
vessel would be just over $5,000.
    Under the no action alternative, NMFS estimated that if gross 
revenues for directed and incidental permit holders is averaged across 
the approximately 298 active directed and incidental shark permit 
holders, then the average annual gross revenues per shark fishing 
vessel is just over $14,000. Using the average landing for directed 
permit holder from 2003 to 2005, it is estimated that the 143 active 
directed permit holders generated average annual gross shark revenues 
of just over $26,000 from sharks. Under alternative 2, the reduced 
gross revenues averaged across the 143 active directed permit holders 
are estimated to be just over $7,000 per directed shark fishing vessel 
and just $1,221 per vessel per year for incidental permit holders that 
land sharks. Under alternative 3 this is reduced further to 
approximately $5,500 ($793,338 gross revenues per 143 vessel) per 
directed shark fishing vessel per year.
    Comparing these revenues to those in alternative 4 indicates that 
the proposed alternative maintains the annual gross revenues per vessel 
for the vessel operating in the small research fishery, while allowing 
other vessels outside of the research fishery to generate revenues at 
reduced levels. Alternative 4 has less economic impacts to shark 
fishermen than alternatives 5, but has greater impacts in the short-run 
than the no action alternative. By allowing a limited number of 
historical participants to continue to harvest sharks under the 
research fishery, NMFS ensures that data for stock assessments and life 
history samples would continue to be collected. Alternative 4 also 
involves less reporting burden for dealers than would be required under 
alternative 2. Alternative 4 is the alternative that best meets the 
objectives of this rule while minimizing the economic impacts to shark 
permit holders.

E. Alternative Suite 5

    Alternative 5 would have significant economic and social impacts on 
a variety of small entities, including: commercial shark permit 
holders, shark dealers, gear manufacturers, bait and ice suppliers, and 
other secondary industries dependent on the shark fishery. The level of 
economic impact would be directly proportional to the amount of 
revenues that each entity has realized from past participation in the 
shark fishery. Permit holders would be

[[Page 41407]]

impacted differently depending on the quantity of sharks landed in the 
past. Vessels targeting sharks (directed permit holders) landed an 
annual average of 1,262 mt dw of LCS, 184.5 mt dw SCS, and 29.84 mt dw 
pelagic sharks per year between 2003-2005. The gross revenues based on 
2006 ex-vessel prices of these landings is estimated at $3,877,003, 
$593,853, and $117,920 for LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks, respectively. 
While it is assumed that few directed shark permit holders subsist 
entirely on revenues attained from the shark fishery, impacts would 
still be severe for those participants that depend on any income from 
participating in the directed shark fishery at certain times of the 
year. Because of the extensive economic impacts to shark directed 
permit holders as a result of this alternative, it is assumed that 
directed permit holders would likely pursue one of the following 
options as a result of closing the Atlantic shark fishery: (1) transfer 
fishing effort to other fisheries for which they are already permitted 
(snapper grouper, king and Spanish mackerel, tilefish, lobster, 
dolphin/wahoo, etc), (2) acquire the necessary permits to participate 
in other fisheries (both open access and/or limited access fisheries), 
or (3) relinquish all permits and leave the fishing industry.
    Incidental permit holders would face negative economic and social 
impacts as a result of closing the Atlantic shark fishery; however, 
these impacts would not be as severe as those experienced by directed 
permit holders. It is assumed that incidental permit holders receive 
the majority of their fishing income from participating in other 
fisheries depending on the region and the type of gear predominantly 
fished (i.e., swordfish, tunas, snapper grouper, tilefish, dolphin/
wahoo, lobster, etc.). NMFS estimates that, on average, between 2003-
2005 incidental permit holders landed 26.8 mt dw LCS, 15.3 mt dw SCS, 
and 8.11 mt dw pelagic sharks per year. This equates in gross revenues 
based on 2006 ex-vessel prices for these landings of $82,333, $49,246, 
and $32,049 for the respective species complexes. Incidental permit 
holders would likely have to increase effort in these other fisheries 
to replace lost revenues from landing sharks. Furthermore, these 
vessels may seek other permits (open access or limited access 
transferred from another vessel) or leave the fishing industry 
entirely.
    Alternative 5 could also have negative economic and social impacts 
for shark dealers as they would no longer be authorized to purchase 
shark products from Federally permitted shark fishermen. Shark dealers 
also maintain permits to purchase other regionally caught fish 
products. Due to the brevity of the LCS shark fishing season, which is 
the shark fishery that accounts for the majority of the shark product 
revenue due to the fin value, many dealers also get revenue from 
purchasing fish products other than sharks. The majority of shark 
dealer permit holders hold permits to purchase other fish products, 
including swordfish, tunas, snapper grouper, tilefish, mackerel, 
lobster, and dolphin/wahoo among others. It is difficult to assume, on 
an individual dealer basis, the quantity of revenues received 
exclusively from shark products.
    Shark fin dealers, specializing in the purchase of shark fins from 
Federal and state permitted dealers, would also experience negative 
social and economic impacts as a result of closing the shark fishery. 
These dealers receive virtually all of their income from purchasing 
shark fins and shipping them to exporters. Exporters then transport the 
fins to global and domestic markets. This alternative would likely 
force shark fin dealers to leave the industry or focus on purchasing 
other fishery products, resulting in significant economic impacts to 
the individuals involved in this trade.
    It is difficult to estimate the economic and social impacts that 
would be experienced by various small entities that support the shark 
fishery, e.g., purveyors of bait, ice, fishing gear, and fishing gear 
manufactures. However, these impacts would likely be negative. It is 
difficult to estimate these impacts as it is uncertain to what extent 
vessels that were fishing for sharks would redistribute their fishing 
effort to other fisheries, or simply cease fishing operations. If the 
majority of vessels affected by a shark fishery closure simply displace 
effort to other fisheries it is assumed that they would still be 
dependant on small entities for their bait, ice, and gear as these are 
products essential for fishing excursions targeting any species. 
Redistributing effort to other fisheries would mitigate negative 
economic impacts. However, if a significant number of vessels simply 
cease fishing operations or scale back considerably, then severe 
economic consequences would be imparted on these support industries as 
a result.
    This alternative would increase the proportion of fishermen 
completing the Coastal Fisheries Logbook and then selected to report 
information on fish that are discarded. Currently, 20 percent of the 
fishermen completing this logbook are selected. This percentage would 
be increased to facilitate improved data available for shark 
interactions with longline and gillnet gear. This information would be 
especially useful because sharks could no longer be landed and the 
existing logbook only requires fishermen to provide data on landed 
fish. Increasing the number of fishermen who are selected to provide 
this data would result in negative economic and social impacts because 
it would require additional paperwork to be filled out. Increased 
reporting burden would be subject to approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Vessels would no longer be required to take an observer. 
Shark dealers would no longer be required to submit dealer reports 
regarding sharks purchased.
    Seasons and regions for the commercial Atlantic shark fishery would 
no longer apply as this alternative would close the fishery.
    Closing the Atlantic recreational shark fishery would have negative 
economic and social impacts. These impacts would be most pronounced for 
CHB operators who specialize in landing sharks and operators of shark 
tournaments that have prize categories for landing sharks. It is 
difficult to estimate the number of CHB operators that specialize in 
shark charters as the permit covers any participant targeting 
swordfish, sharks, tunas, and billfish. Many CHB operators target a 
variety of species depending on client interests, weather, time of 
year, and oceanographic conditions. CHB operators specializing in shark 
fishing charters would have to target other HMS or non HMS species to 
replace revenues lost as a result of customers not being able to land 
sharks. However, not all customers necessarily want to land sharks. CHB 
operators would still be able to catch sharks, however, all sharks 
regardless of species would need to be released in a manner that 
maximizes their chances of survival. Catering business operations to 
clientele interested in catch and release fishing for sharks might 
mitigate some of the negative economic impacts. Shark tournaments that 
reward prizes for landing sharks would be negatively impacted as a 
result of this alternative. There have been 79 tournaments per year 
that had a prize category for sharks from 2005-2006. The majority of 
these tournaments target pelagic sharks and are held in the North 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. These tournaments would either 
modify their rules to only allow points/prizes for released sharks or 
these tournaments would cease to exist. Economic impacts on small 
entities such as restaurants, hotels, gear manufacturers, retail stores 
selling fishing supplies, and marinas in the

[[Page 41408]]

vicinity of where these tournaments are held would also experience 
negative economic impacts.
    HMS Angling permit holders would also experience negative impacts, 
despite the fact that they would still be able to catch and release 
sharks. Many anglers find pleasure in being able to land a legal limit 
of sharks to eat themselves or give away to friends. Landings would not 
be permitted by any recreational anglers as a result of this 
alternative.
    Closing the Atlantic shark fishery would have negative economic 
impacts on global shark fin markets. As a result of this alternative, 
U.S. flagged vessels would no longer be able to contribute to the 
global demand for shark fins. This would disadvantage U.S. shark 
fishermen as global markets would likely need to purchase their shark 
fins from other markets. However, the United States is not a 
significant producer of shark products globally. Based on data from the 
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), less than one 
percent of global shark landings occur in the U.S. Atlantic.
    While alternative 5 would meet the objectives of this rule, it 
would have the highest negative economic impacts of the alternatives 
considered. There would be significant reductions in revenues for shark 
dealers and fishing vessels involved with the shark fishery. Some small 
businesses dependent on commercial shark fishing may cease operating as 
a result of prohibiting the commercial harvest of shark species. 
Therefore, this alternative was not selected.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 600
    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 CFR Part 635
    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: July 18, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 635 
are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

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

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    2. In Sec.  600.1203, paragraph (a)(9) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  600.1203  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *
    (9) Fail to maintain a shark in the form specified in Sec. Sec.  
600.1204(h) and 635.30(c) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  600.1204, paragraphs (h) and (j) are revised to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (h) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
Federal Atlantic commercial shark limited access permit and who lands 
shark in or from the U.S. EEZ in an Atlantic coastal port must comply 
with regulations found at Sec.  635.30(c) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (j) No person aboard a vessel that has been issued a Federal 
Atlantic commercial shark limited access permit shall possess on board 
shark fins without the fins being attached to the corresponding 
carcass(es), except that sharks may be eviscerated and the head removed 
from the carcass at sea.
* * * * *

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    5. In Sec.  635.2, the definitions of ``First receiver,'' ``Non-
sandbar LCS,'' and ``Shark research permit'' are added in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec.  635.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    First receiver means the entity, person, or company that takes, for 
commercial purposes, immediate possession of the fish, or any part of 
the fish, as the fish are offloaded from a fishing vessel of the United 
States, as defined under Sec.  600.10 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    Non-sandbar LCS means one of the species, or part thereof, listed 
in paragraph (A) of table 1 in appendix A to this part other than the 
sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus).
* * * * *
    Shark research permit means a permit issued to a commercial shark 
vessel in order to catch and land a limited number of sharks to 
maintain time series for stock assessments and other scientific 
research purposes. These permits may be issued only to persons who own 
a vessel that has been issued either a directed or incidental shark 
LAP. The permit is specific to that vessel.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec.  635.4, paragraphs (a)(5) and (g)(2) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits and fees.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) Display upon offloading. Upon transfer of Atlantic HMS, the 
owner or operator of the harvesting vessel must present for inspection 
the vessel's HMS Charter/Headboat permit, Atlantic tunas, shark, or 
swordfish permit, and/or the shark research permit to the receiving 
dealer. The permit must be presented prior to completing any applicable 
landing report specified at Sec.  635.5(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(2)(i).
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Shark. A first receiver, as defined in 635.2, of Atlantic 
sharks must possess a valid dealer permit.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec.  635.5, paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(1)(iv) 
are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.5  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Dealers that have been issued an Atlantic tunas, swordfish, 
and/or sharks dealer permit under Sec.  635.4 must submit to NMFS all 
reports required under this section. All reports must be species-
specific and must include all HMS landed, regardless of where harvested 
or whether the vessel is Federally permitted under Sec.  635.4. As 
stated in Sec.  635.4 (a)(6), failure to comply with these 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements could result in the existing 
dealer permit being revoked, suspended, or modified, and in the denial 
of any future applications.
    (ii) Reports of Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and/or sharks received 
by dealers from U.S. vessels, as defined under Sec.  600.10 of this 
chapter, on the first through the 15th of each month, must be received 
by NMFS not later than the 25th of that month. Reports of Atlantic 
tunas, swordfish, and/or sharks received on the 16th through the last 
day of each month must be received by NMFS not later than the 10th of 
the following month. If a dealer issued an Atlantic tunas, swordfish, 
or sharks dealer permit under Sec.  635.4 has not received any Atlantic 
HMS from U.S. vessels during a reporting period as

[[Page 41409]]

specified in this section, he or she must still submit the report 
required under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section stating that no 
Atlantic HMS were received. This negative report must be received by 
NMFS for the applicable reporting period as specified in this section. 
This negative reporting requirement does not apply for bluefin tuna.
* * * * *
    (iv) The dealer may mail or fax such report to an address 
designated by NMFS or may hand-deliver such report to a state or 
Federal fishery port agent designated by NMFS. If the dealer hand-
delivers the report to a port agent, the dealer must deliver such 
report for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, or sharks no later than the 
prescribed received date for the reporting period prescribed in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    8. In Sec.  635.21, paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(3)(ii) 
are revised and paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed area from January 1 through July 
31 each calendar year;
    (ii) The areas designated at Sec.  622.33(a)(1) through (3) of this 
title, year-round; and
    (iii) The areas described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) through (H) 
of this section, year-round.
    (A) Snowy Grouper Wreck off North Carolina in the area that is 
bound by the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 33[deg] 
25'N. lat., 77[deg] 4.75'W. long.; northeast corner at 33[deg] 34.75'N. 
lat., 76[deg]51.3'W. long.; southwest corner at 33[deg] 15.75'N. lat., 
77[deg] W. long.; and the southeast corner at 33[deg]25.5'N. lat., 
76[deg]46.5'W. long..
    (B) Northern South Carolina Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the area 
bounded by the following coordinates: The northwest corner at 32[deg] 
53.5'N. lat., 78[deg] 16.75'W. long.; the northeast corner at 32[deg] 
53.5'N. lat., 78[deg] 4.75'W. long.; the southwest corner at 
32[deg]48.5'N. lat., 78[deg]16.75'W. long.; and the southeast corner at 
32[deg]48.5'N. lat., 78[deg]4.75'W. long..
    (C) Edisto MPA in the area bounded by the following coordinates: 
The northwest corner at 32[deg]24'N. lat., 79[deg]6'W. long.; the 
northeast corner at 32[deg]24'N. lat., 78[deg]54'W. long.; the 
southwest corner at 32[deg]18.5'N. lat., 79[deg]6'W. long.; and the 
southeast corner at 32[deg]18.5'N. lat., 78[deg]54'W. long..
    (D) Georgia MPA (Tilefish MPA) in the area bounded by the following 
coordinates: The northwest corner at 31[deg]43'N. lat., 79[deg]31'W. 
long.; the northeast corner at 31[deg] 43'N. lat., 79[deg]21'W. long.; 
the southwest corner at 31[deg]34'N. lat., 79[deg]39'W. long.; and the 
southeast corner at 31[deg]34'N. lat., 79[deg]29'W. long..
    (E) North Florida MPA in the area bounded by the following 
coordinates: The northwest corner at 30[deg]29'N. lat., 80[deg]14'W. 
long.; the northeast corner at 30[deg]29'N. lat., 80[deg]2'W. long.; 
the southwest corner at 30[deg]19'N. lat., 80[deg]14'W. long.; and the 
southeast corner at 30[deg]19'N. lat., 80[deg]2'W. long.
    (F) St. Lucie Hump MPA in the area bounded by the following 
coordinates: The northwest corner at 27[deg]8'N. lat., 80[deg] W. 
long.; the northeast corner at 27[deg]8'N. lat., 79[deg]58'W. long.; 
the southwest corner at 27[deg]4'N. lat., 80[deg] W. long.; and the 
southeast corner at 27[deg] 4'N. lat., 79[deg]58'W. long.
    (G) East Hump/Un-named Hump MPA in the area bounded by the 
following coordinates: The northwest corner at 24[deg]36.5'N. lat., 
80[deg]45.5'W. long.; the northeast corner at 24[deg]32'N. lat., 
80[deg]36'W. long.; the southwest corner at 24[deg]32.5'N. lat., 
80[deg]48'W. long.; and the southeast corner at 24[deg]27.5'N. lat., 
80[deg] 38.5'W. long.
    (H) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef MPA off the Coast of South 
Carolina in the area identified by the following boundaries: The 
northwest corner at 32[deg]08.58'N. lat., 79[deg]07.82'W. long.; the 
northeast corner at 32[deg] 06.06'N. lat., 79[deg]04.99'W. long.; the 
southwest corner at 32[deg]04.07'N. lat., 79[deg]12.11'W. long.; and 
the southeast corner at 32[deg]01.47'N. lat., 79 [deg]09.28'W. long.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (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 turtle 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, any hooked or entangled species of sharks that exceed the 
retention limits as specified in Sec.  635.24(a), and any hooked or 
entangled smalltooth sawfish. In addition, 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. All smalltooth 
sawfish must be released in a manner that will ensure maximum 
probability of survival, but without removing the fish from the water.
* * * * *
    9. In Sec.  635.22, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.22  Recreational retention limits.

* * * * *
    (c) Sharks. One of the following sharks may be retained per vessel 
per trip, subject to the size limits described in Sec.  635.20(e): 
lemon (Negaprion brevirostris), nurse (Ginglymostoma cirratum), 
scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini), smooth hammerhead (S. zygena), 
great hammerhead (S. mokarran), tiger (Galeocerdo cuvieri), blue 
(Prionace glauca), common thresher (Alopias vulpinus), oceanic whitetip 
(C. longimanus), and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyricnchus). In addition, 
one Atlantic sharpnose shark and one bonnethead shark may be retained 
per person per trip. Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than 
one Atlantic sharpnose shark and one bonnethead shark per person may be 
possessed on board a vessel. No prohibited sharks, including parts or 
pieces of prohibited sharks, which are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A 
to this part under prohibited sharks, may be retained regardless of 
where harvested. The recreational retention limit for sharks applies to 
any person who fishes in any manner, except to persons aboard a vessel 
that has been issued an Atlantic incidental or directed shark LAP under 
Sec.  635.4. If an Atlantic shark quota is closed under Sec.  635.28, 
the recreational retention limit for sharks and no sale provision in 
paragraph (a) may be applied to persons aboard a vessel issued an 
Atlantic incidental or directed shark LAP under Sec.  635.4, only if 
that vessel has also been issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit issued 
under Sec.  635.4 and is engaged in a for-hire fishing trip.
* * * * *
    10. In Sec.  635.24, introductory paragraph is removed and 
paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.24  Commercial retention limits for sharks and swordfish.

    (a) Sharks. (1) A person who owns or operates a vessel issued a 
valid shark research permit under Sec.  635.32(f) and who has a NMFS-
approved observer on board may retain, possess, or land LCS, including 
sandbar sharks, in excesss of the retention limits in paragraphs (a)(2) 
through (4) of this section. The amount of LCS that can be landed by 
such a person will vary as specified on the shark research permit. Only 
a person who owns or operates a vessel issued a

[[Page 41410]]

valid shark research permit with a NMFS-approved observer on board may 
retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks.
    (2) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
directed or incidental LAP for sharks, or that has been issued a shark 
research permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board, 
may retain, possess, or land no more than 22 non-sandbar LCS per vessel 
per trip. Such persons may not retain, possess, or land sandbar sharks.
    (3) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an 
incidental LAP for sharks may retain, possess, or land no more than 16 
SCS and pelagic sharks, combined per trip. A person who owns or 
operates a vessel that has been issued a directed shark LAP may retain, 
possess, or land SCS and pelagic sharks if the fishery is open per 
Sec.  635.27 and Sec.  635.28.
    (4) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an 
incidental or directed LAP for sharks may not retain, possess, land, 
sell, or purchase prohibited sharks, including any parts or pieces of 
prohibited sharks, which are listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to this 
part under prohibited sharks.
* * * * *
    11. In Sec.  635.27, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.27  Quotas.

* * * * *
    (b) Sharks-(1) Commercial quotas. The commercial quotas for sharks 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vi) of this section 
apply to all sharks harvested from the management unit, regardless of 
where harvested. Sharks taken and landed from state waters, even by 
fishermen without Federal shark permits, are counted against the 
fishery quota. Commercial quotas are specified for each of the 
management groups of sandbar sharks, non-sandbar LCS, SCS, pelagic 
sharks, and blue sharks. Any sharks landed as unclassified will be 
considered a sandbar shark, for the purposes of quota monitoring, and 
will be counted against that quota. No prohibited sharks, including 
parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, which are listed under heading D 
of Table 1 of Appendix A to this part, may be retained except as 
authorized under Sec.  635.32.
    (i) Fishing seasons. The fishing season for sandbar sharks, non-
sandbar LCS, small coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks will begin on 
January 1 and end on December 31.
    (ii) Sandbar sharks. The base annual commercial quota for sandbar 
sharks is 116.6 mt dw, unless adjusted pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(vi) 
of this section.
    (iii) Non-sandbar LCS. The base annual commercial quota for non-
sandbar LCS is 541.2 mt dw, unless adjusted pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (iv) Small coastal sharks. The base annual commercial quota for 
small coastal sharks is 454 mt dw, unless adjusted pursuant to 
paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (v) Pelagic sharks. The base annual commercial quotas for pelagic 
sharks are 273 mt dw for blue sharks and 488 mt dw for pelagic sharks 
other than blue sharks, unless adjusted pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(1)(vi) of this section.
    (vi) Annual adjustments. NMFS will publish in the Federal Register 
any annual adjustments to the base annual commercial quotas. The base 
annual quota will not be available and the fishery will not open until 
such adjustments are published in the Federal Register.
    (A) Overharvests. If an annual quota for sandbar sharks, non-
sandbar LCS, small coastal, and pelagic sharks is exceeded in any 
fishing season, NMFS will deduct an amount equivalent to the 
overharvest from the following fishing season. If the blue shark quota 
is exceeded, NMFS will reduce the annual commercial quota for pelagic 
sharks by the amount that the blue shark quota is exceeded prior to the 
start of the next fishing season.
    (B) Underharvests. If an annual quota for sandbar sharks, non-
sandbar LCS, SCS, pelagic sharks, or blue sharks is not exceeded, NMFS 
will adjust the annual quota depending on the status of the stock. If 
the stock (e.g., sandbar shark, non-sandbar LCS, SCS, pelagic shark, or 
blue shark) is declared to be overfished, to have overfishing 
occurring, or to have an unknown status, NMFS will not adjust the 
following fishing year's quota for any underharvest and the following 
fishing year's quota will be equal to the base annual quota. If the 
stock is not declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, 
or to have an unknown status, NMFS will increase the following year's 
base annual quota by an equivalent amount of the underharvest up to 50 
percent above the base annual quota.
    (2) Public display and research quota. The base annual quota for 
persons who collect sharks from the non-sandbar LCS, SCS, pelagic 
shark, blue shark, or prohibited species under a display permit or EFP 
is 57.2 mt whole weight (41.2 mt dw). The base annual quota for persons 
who collect sandbar sharks under a display permit is 1.4 mt whole 
weight (1 mt dw) and under an EFP is 1.4 mt whole weight (1 mt dw). No 
persons may collect dusky sharks under a display permit or EFP. All 
sharks collected under the authority of a display permit or EFP, 
subject to restrictions at Sec.  635.32, will be counted against these 
quotas.
* * * * *
    12. In Sec.  635.28, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.28  Closures.

* * * * *
    (b) Sharks-(1) If quota is available, the commercial fisheries for 
sandbar shark, non-sandbar LCS, SCS, pelagic sharks, and blue sharks 
will remain open as specified at Sec.  635.27(b)(1).
    (2) When NMFS calculates that the fishing season landings for SCS, 
pelagic sharks, or blue sharks has reached or is projected to reach 80 
percent of the available quota as specified in Sec.  635.27(b)(1), NMFS 
will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a 
notice of closure for that shark species group that will be effective 
no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. When NMFS calculates that the 
fishing season landings for either non-sandbar LCS or sandbar sharks 
has been reached or is projected to reach 80 percent of the available 
quota as specified in Sec.  635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for 
publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure 
for both the non-sandbar LCS and sandbar shark species groups that will 
be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the 
effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces via a 
notice in the Federal Register that additional quota is available, the 
fishery for the shark species group is closed, even across fishing 
years.
    (3) When the fishery for a shark species group is closed, a fishing 
vessel, issued an Atlantic Shark LAP pursuant to Sec.  635.4, may not 
possess or sell a shark of that species group, except under the 
conditions specified in Sec.  635.22 (a) and (c), and a shark dealer, 
issued a permit pursuant to Sec.  635.4, may not purchase or receive a 
shark of that species group from a vessel issued an Atlantic Shark LAP, 
except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess sharks 
that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered, prior 
to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage. Under a 
closure for a shark species group, a shark dealer, issued a permit 
pursuant, to Sec.  635.4 may, in accordance with state regulations, 
purchase or receive a shark of that species group if the sharks were 
harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that 
fishes only in state waters and that has not been

[[Page 41411]]

issued a Shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit 
pursuant to Sec.  635.4.
* * * * *
    13. In Sec.  635.30, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.30  Possession at sea and landing.

* * * * *
    (c) Shark-(1) Notwithstanding the regulations issued at part 600, 
subpart N of this chapter, a person who owns or operates a vessel 
issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP must maintain the shark 
fins and tail on the shark carcass until the shark has been offloaded 
from the vessel. While sharks are on board and when being offloaded, 
persons issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP are subject to 
the regulations at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter.
    (2) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has a valid Federal 
Atlantic commercial shark LAP must maintain the shark intact through 
offloading except that the shark may be eviscerated and the head may be 
removed from the carcass. All fins, including the tail, must remain on 
the shark through offloading. While on the vessel, fins may be sliced 
so that the fin can be folded along the carcass for storage purposes as 
long as the fin remains attached to the carcass via a small amount of 
uncut skin. The fins and tails may be completely removed from the 
carcass once the shark has been removed from the vessel.
    (3) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a 
Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP and who lands shark in an 
Atlantic coastal port must have all fins and carcasses weighed and 
recorded on the weighout slips specified in Sec.  635.5(a)(2) and in 
accordance with regulations at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter. 
Persons may not possess a shark fin on board a fishing vessel after the 
vessel's first point of landing.
    (4) Persons aboard a vessel that does not have a commercial permit 
for shark must maintain a shark in or from the EEZ intact through 
landing with the head, tail, and all fins attached. The shark may be 
bled.
* * * * *
    14. In Sec.  635.31, paragraph (c)(4) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.31  Restrictions on sale and purchase.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Only dealers that have a valid permit for shark may purchase a 
shark from the owner or operator of a fishing vessel. Dealers may 
purchase a shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a 
valid commercial permit for shark issued under this part, except that 
dealers may purchase a shark from an owner or operator of a vessel that 
does not have a commercial permit for shark if that vessel fishes 
exclusively in state waters. Dealers may purchase a sandbar shark only 
from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a valid shark research 
permit and who had a NMFS-approved observer onboard the vessel for the 
trip in which the sandbar shark was collected. Dealers may purchase a 
shark from an owner or operator of fishing vessel that has a permit 
issued under this part only when the fishery for that species group has 
not been closed, as specified in Sec.  635.28(b).
* * * * *
    15. In Sec.  635.32, paragraphs (a)(2), (f), and (g) are revised 
and paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  635.32  Specifically authorized activities.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Activities subject to the provisions of this section include, 
but are not limited to, scientific research resulting in, or likely to 
result in, the take, harvest or incidental mortality of Atlantic HMS; 
exempted fishing and educational activities; programs under which 
regulated species retained in contravention to otherwise applicable 
regulations may be donated through approved food bank networks; or 
chartering arrangements. Such activities must be authorized in writing 
and are subject to all conditions specified in any letter of 
acknowledgment, exempted fishing permit, scientific research permit, 
display permit, chartering permit, or shark research permit issued in 
response to requests for authorization under this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Shark research permits. (1) For activities consistent with the 
purposes of this section and Sec.  600.745(b)(1) of this chapter, NMFS 
may issue shark research permits.
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  600.745 of this chapter 
and other provisions of this part, a valid shark research permit is 
required to fish for, take, retain, or possess Atlantic sharks, 
including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits described 
in Sec.  635.24 (a)(2) through (4). A valid shark research permit must 
be on board the harvesting vessel, must be available for inspection 
when the shark is landed, and must be presented for inspection upon 
request of an authorized officer. A shark research permit is only valid 
for the vessel, owner, and operator(s) specified and cannot be 
transferred to another vessel, owner, or operator(s). A shark research 
permit is only valid for the retention limits, time, area, and gear 
specified on the permit and only when a NMFS-approved observer is 
onboard. Species landed under a shark research permit shall be counted 
against the appropriate quota specified in Sec.  635.27 or as otherwise 
provided in the shark research permit.
    (3) Regardless of the number of applicants, NMFS will issue only a 
limited number of shark research permits depending on available quotas 
as described in Sec.  635.27, research needs for stock assessment and 
other scientific purposes, and the number of sharks expected to be 
harvested by vessels issued LAPs for sharks.
    (4) Persons issued a shark research permit, and/or operators of 
vessels specified on the shark research permit, may be required to 
attend additional workshops (e.g., shark identification workshops, 
captain's workshops, etc.) as deemed necessary by NMFS to ensure the 
quality of the data collected.
    (5) Issuance of a shark research permit does not guarantee that the 
holder will be issued a NMFS-approved observer on any particular trip. 
Rather, issuance indicates that a vessel may be issued a NMFS-approved 
observer for a particular trip and may be allowed to harvest Atlantic 
sharks, including sandbar sharks, in excess of the retention limits 
described in Sec.  635.24 (a)(2) through (4).
    (6) The shark research permit may be revoked, limited, or modified 
at any time, does not confer any right to engage in activities beyond 
those permitted by the permit, and does not confer any right of 
compensation to the holder.
    (g) Applications and renewals. (1) Application procedures shall be 
as indicated under Sec.  600.745(b)(2) of this chapter, except that 
NMFS may consolidate requests for the purpose of obtaining public 
comment. In such cases, NMFS may file with the Office of the Federal 
Register, on an annual or more frequent basis as necessary, 
notification of previously authorized exempted fishing, scientific 
research, public display, chartering, and shark research activities and 
to solicit public comment on anticipated EFP, SRP, LOA, public display, 
chartering, or shark research permit activities. Applications for EFPs, 
SRPs, public display permits, chartering permits, or shark research 
permits are required to include all reports specified in the 
applicant's previous permit including, if applicable, the year-end 
report, all delinquent reports for permits issued in prior years, and 
all other specified information. In situations of delinquent

[[Page 41412]]

reports, applications will be deemed incomplete and a permit will not 
be issued under this section.
    (2) For the shark research permit, NMFS will publish annually in 
the Federal Register a notice describing, for the following fishing 
year, the expected research objectives, number of vessels needed, 
regions and seasons for which vessels are needed, the specific criteria 
for selection, and the application deadline. Complete applications, 
including all information requested in the Federal Register notice and 
on the application form and any previous reports required pursuant to 
this section and Sec.  635.5, must be received by NMFS by the 
application deadline in order for the vessel to be considered. 
Requested information could include, but is not limited to, applicant 
name and address, permit information, the number of expected trips to 
collect sharks, when and where the trips are expected to occur, 
vessel(s) and gear to be used. NMFS will review all complete 
applications and rank vessels according to the ability of the vessel 
to: meet the research objectives; fish in the regions and seasons 
required; carry a NMFS-approved observer; and meet other criteria as 
published in the annual notice. Vessels that do not have recent and/or 
an excessive number of fishery regulation violations, as determined by 
the Office of Law Enforcement, will be ranked higher than vessels that 
do have recent and/or excessive number of fishery regulation 
violations. Until the number of vessels required for the research are 
filled, vessels that rank highest in meeting the specific criteria will 
be issued shark research permits. If a vessel issued a shark research 
permit cannot conduct the shark research tasks, for whatever reason, 
that permit will be revoked and, depending on the status of the 
research and the fishing year, the next highest ranked vessel will be 
issued a shark research permit.
    (h) Terms and conditions. (1) For EFPs, SRPs, and public display 
permits: Written reports on fishing activities and disposition released 
under a permit issued under this section must be submitted to NMFS 
within 5 days of return to port. NMFS will provide specific conditions 
and requirements as needed, consistent with the Consolidated HMS 
Fishery Management Plan in the permit. If an individual issued a 
Federal permit under this section captures no HMS in any given month, 
either in or outside the EEZ, a ``no-catch'' report must be submitted 
to NMFS within 5 days of the last day of that month.
    (2) For chartering permits, written reports of fishing activities 
must be submitted to NMFS by a date specified, and to an address 
designated, in the terms and conditions of each chartering permit.
    (3) An annual written summary report of all fishing activities, and 
disposition of all fish captured, under the permit must be submitted to 
NMFS for all EFPs, SRPs, Display, and Chartering Permits issued under 
this section within 30 days after the expiration date of the permit.
    (4) For shark research permits, all owners and/or operators must 
comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements specified in 
Sec.  635.5 per the requirement of holding a LAP for sharks.
    (5) As stated in Sec.  635.4 (a)(6), failure to comply with the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this section could result 
in the EFP, SRP, display permit, chartering permit, or shark research 
permit being revoked, suspended, or modified, and in the denial of any 
future applications.
    16. In Sec.  635.69, the introductory language to paragraph (a) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.69  Vessel monitoring systems.

    (a) Applicability. To facilitate enforcement of time/area and 
fishery closures, an owner or operator of a commercial vessel, 
permitted to fish for Atlantic HMS under Sec.  635.4 and that fishes 
with a pelagic or bottom longline or gillnet gear, is required to 
install a NMFS-approved vessel monitoring system (VMS) unit on board 
the vessel and operate the VMS unit under the following circumstances:
* * * * *
    17. In Sec.  635.71, paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), (d)(3), 
(d)(4), (d)(6) through (8), and (d)(10) are revised and paragraphs 
(d)(15) and (d)(16) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or land an Atlantic HMS 
without the appropriate valid vessel permit, LAP, EFP, SRP, display 
permit, chartering permit, or shark research permit on board the 
vessel, as specified in Sec. Sec.  635.4 and 635.32.
* * * * *
    (4) Sell or transfer or attempt to sell or transfer, for commercial 
purposes, an Atlantic tuna, shark, or swordfish other than to a dealer 
that has a valid dealer permit issued under Sec.  635.4, except that 
this does not apply to a shark harvested from a vessel that has not 
been issued a permit under this part and that fishes exclusively within 
the waters under the jurisdiction of any state.
* * * * *
    (6) Falsify or fail to record, report, or maintain information 
required to be recorded, reported, or maintained, as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  635.5 and 635.32 or in the terms and conditions of a permit 
issued under Sec.  635.4 or an exempted fishing permit, scientific 
research permit, display permit, chartering permit, or shark research 
permit issued under Sec.  635.32.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Retain, possess, or land a shark of a species group when the 
fishery for that species group is closed, as specified in Sec.  
635.28(b).
    (4) Sell or purchase a shark of a species group when the fishery 
for that species group is closed, as specified in Sec.  635.28(b).
* * * * *
    (6) Fail to maintain a shark in its proper form, as specified in 
Sec.  635.30(c).
    (7) Sell or purchase shark fins that are disproportionate to the 
weight of shark carcasses, as specified in Sec.  635.30(c) and Sec.  
600.1204(e) and (l) of this chapter.
    (8) Fail to have shark fins and carcasses weighed and recorded, as 
specified in Sec.  635.30(c).
* * * * *
    (10) Retain, possess, sell, or purchase a prohibited shark, 
including parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, as specified under 
Sec. Sec.  635.22(c), 635.24(a), and 635.27(b), or fail to disengage 
any hooked or entangled prohibited shark with the least harm possible 
to the animal as specified at Sec.  635.21(d).
* * * * *
    (15) Sell or transfer or attempt to sell or transfer a sandbar 
shark or sharks or part of a sandbar shark or sharks in excess of the 
retention limits specified in Sec.  635.24(a).
    (16) Purchase, receive, or transfer or attempt to purchase, 
receive, or transfer a sandbar shark or sharks or part of a sandbar 
shark or sharks landed in excess of the retention limits specified in 
Sec.  635.24(a).
* * * * *
    18. In Table 1 of Appendix A to part 635, remove entry for 
``Porbeagle, Lamna nasus'' under heading C and add the entry 
``Porbeagle, Lamna nasus'' under heading D in alphabetical order.
[FR Doc. E7-14536 Filed 7-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S