[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71672-71688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25051]



[[Page 71672]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 130417378-6933-01]
RIN 0648-BD22


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management 
Measures; Proposed Amendment 5b

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is amending the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly 
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) based on the 
results of the 2016 stock assessment update for Atlantic dusky sharks. 
Based on this assessment, NMFS determined that the dusky shark stock 
remains overfished and is experiencing overfishing. Consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act), NMFS is proposing management measures that would reduce 
fishing mortality on dusky sharks and rebuild the dusky shark 
population consistent with legal requirements. The proposed measures 
could affect U.S. commercial and recreational fishermen who harvest 
sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and 
Caribbean Sea.

DATES: Written comments must be received by December 22, 2016. NMFS 
will hold six public hearings on Draft Amendment 5b and this 
implementing proposed rule on November 9, November 15, November 16, 
November 21, and November 28, 2016. NMFS will also hold an operator-
assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar for this 
proposed rule on December 12, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST. 
For specific locations, dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2013-0070, by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0070, click the 
``Comment Now'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach 
your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen, 
NMFS/SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Instructions: Please include the identifier NOAA-NMFS-2013-0070 
when submitting comments. Comments sent by any other method, to any 
other address or individual, or received after the close of the comment 
period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part 
of the public record and generally will be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). 
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. 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 the 
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division by email to 
[email protected], or fax to 202-395-7285.
    NMFS will hold 6 public hearings and 1 conference call on this 
proposed rule. NMFS will hold public hearings in Manalapan, NJ; 
Newport, RI; Belle Chasse, LA; Houston, TX; Melbourne, FL; and Manteo, 
NC; and via a public conference call. For specific locations, dates and 
times see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Copies of the supporting documents--including the draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP are available from the HMS Web site at 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or by contacting Tobey Curtis at 978-
281-9273.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tobey Curtis at 978-281-9273 or Karyl 
Brewster-Geisz at 301-427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Atlantic commercial shark fisheries are managed primarily under 
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 2006 Consolidated HMS 
FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 
635. A brief summary of the background of this proposed rule is 
provided below. Additional information regarding Atlantic HMS 
management can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(DEIS) for Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 
5b), the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the annual HMS 
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

Dusky Shark Stock Status and Management History

    NMFS has prohibited the retention of dusky sharks in commercial and 
recreational fisheries since 2000. In 2008, in response to a 2006 stock 
assessment declaring dusky sharks to be overfished with overfishing 
occurring despite this complete prohibition, NMFS adopted a rebuilding 
plan for the stock. This rebuilding plan, set out in Amendment 2 to the 
Consolidated HMS FMP, undertook a suite of measures to address dusky 
shark overfishing, focusing primarily on bycatch of the species in 
other shark fisheries. Major components of this plan--which are 
unchanged by this action--include a continued prohibition on retention 
of dusky sharks (Sec. Sec.  635.22(c)(4) and 635.24(a)(5)), time/area 
closures (Sec.  635.21(d)), and the prohibition of landing sandbar 
sharks (the historic target species for the large coastal shark 
fishery) outside of the shark research fishery along with significant 
retention limit reductions in the bottom longline fishery where 
interactions were commonly occurring (Sec. Sec.  635.24(a)(1), (2), and 
(3)). The terminal year for rebuilding was set at 2108, consistent with 
the assessment, which concluded that the stock could rebuild within 100 
to 400 years. In 2011, three years into this 100-year rebuilding plan, 
a benchmark stock assessment for dusky sharks was completed through the 
Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 21 process (76 FR 62331, 
October 7, 2011), the first assessment for dusky sharks conducted 
within the SEDAR process. The 2011 stock assessment provided an update 
to a 2006 dusky shark stock assessment and concluded that the stock 
remained overfished with overfishing occurring.
    On October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62331), NMFS made stock status 
determinations for several shark species based on the results of the 
SEDAR 21 process. NMFS determined in the notice that dusky sharks, a 
prohibited species, were still overfished and still experiencing 
overfishing (i.e., their stock status has not changed from a 2006 
assessment). The stock assessment recommended a

[[Page 71673]]

decrease in dusky shark mortality of 58 percent against 2009 levels. 
NMFS announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for Amendment 5 to the 2006 Atlantic Consolidated HMS FMP, which 
would assess the potential effects on the human environment of 
additional action proposed through rulemaking to rebuild and end 
overfishing of several stocks assessed in SEDAR 21, including dusky 
sharks, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    NMFS considered alternatives to rebuild several overfished Atlantic 
shark species, including dusky sharks, in Draft Amendment 5 (77 FR 
70552, November 26, 2012). The proposed measures were designed to 
reduce fishing mortality and effort, while ensuring that a limited 
sustainable shark fishery for certain species could be maintained 
consistent with legal obligations and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. 
NMFS received substantial public comment disputing the basis for the 
proposed dusky shark measures, and NMFS decided further analysis was 
necessary on those measures in a separate FMP amendment, EIS, and 
proposed rule. NMFS finalized management measures for the other 
Atlantic shark species included in Draft Amendment 5 in the Final 
Amendment 5a and associated final rule (78 FR 40318, July 3, 2013), 
while announcing that dusky shark management measures would be included 
in an upcoming, separate rulemaking known as Amendment 5b (i.e., this 
rule).
    NMFS prepared a Predraft for Amendment 5b in March 2014 that 
considered the feedback received on Draft Amendment 5, solicited 
additional public input, and consulted with its Advisory Panel at the 
Spring 2014 meeting. The Predraft considered alternatives that were not 
included in Draft Amendment 5, as well as new information.
    Following the Predraft for Amendment 5b, additional information 
regarding dusky sharks became available that was not available at the 
time of the SEDAR 21 stock assessment. NMFS, in response to two 
petitions from environmental groups regarding listing dusky sharks 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), conducted an ESA Status Review 
for the Northwest Atlantic population of dusky sharks, which was 
completed in October 2014. That status review included an updated 
analysis of three fishery-independent surveys, the Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center (NEFSC) Coastal Shark Bottom Longline Survey (NELL), the 
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Shark Longline Survey (VIMS LL), 
and the University of North Carolina Shark Longline Survey (UNC LL), 
using the same methodology as the SEDAR 21 Data Workshop (McCandless et 
al., 2014). The updated analysis included data from 2010--2012 and 
showed an increasing trend in dusky shark indices of abundance for all 
three surveys since 2009, the terminal year of data used for dusky 
sharks in the SEDAR 21 stock assessment. The ESA Status Review Team 
concluded that, based on the most recent stock assessment, abundance 
projections, updated analyses, and the potential threats and risks to 
population extinction, the dusky shark population in the Northwest 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico has a low risk of extinction currently and 
in the foreseeable future. On December 16, 2014, NMFS announced a 12-
month finding that determined that the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of 
Mexico population of dusky sharks did not warrant listing under the ESA 
at that time (79 FR 74954).
    NMFS applied additional restrictions in the shark research fishery 
to reduce dusky shark mortality in 2013 (refer to the Amendment 5b 
DEIS; see ADDRESSES). This included establishing a dusky shark 
interaction cap for the entire shark research fishery of 45 dusky 
sharks per year, with more specific caps within the regions, which has 
been an effective way to minimize dusky shark dead discards within the 
limited shark research fishery, which only involves 6 to 10 
participants annually.
    By Fall 2015, as described in an HMS staff presentation to its 
Advisory Panel, the reductions in dusky shark mortality since 2009, and 
the increasing population trends from fishery-independent surveys, had 
indicated that management actions may have already reduced dusky shark 
mortality to levels prescribed by the SEDAR 21 stock assessment (i.e., 
reduced mortality by at least 58 percent against 2009 levels). In light 
of this updated information, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center 
(SEFSC) prioritized an update of the SEDAR 21 dusky shark stock 
assessment using data through 2015, to be completed in summer 2016. It 
was determined that further action on Amendment 5b should wait until 
after the completion of the assessment update to ensure that it was 
based on the best available scientific information.
    On October 27, 2015, the environmental advocacy organization Oceana 
filed a complaint against NMFS in Federal district court alleging 
violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Administrative Procedure Act 
with respect to delays in taking action to rebuild and end overfishing 
of dusky sharks. A settlement agreement was reached between NMFS and 
the Plaintiffs on May 18, 2016, regarding the timing of the pending 
agency action. This settlement acknowledged that NMFS was in the 
process of developing an action to address overfishing and rebuilding 
of dusky sharks and that an assessment update was ongoing and 
stipulated that, based upon the results of the assessment update, NMFS 
would submit a proposed rule to the Federal Register no later than 
October 14, 2016.
    A draft of the SEDAR 21 stock assessment update for dusky sharks 
became available in July 2016 and underwent internal NMFS peer review 
in August 2016. The assessment update added 2010-2015 data inputs from 
the same data sources vetted and approved in SEDAR 21 (fishery-
dependent and -independent data, relative effort series, etc.) to the 
accepted models in order to update the status of the stock using the 
most recent data. Five model scenarios were run, all of which were 
considered to be plausible states of nature according to SEDAR 21 
(i.e., no single model is considered preferred to the others). The peer 
reviewers did not identify any issues or concerns with the methods 
applied or the results or conclusions of the assessment update. 
However, SEDAR 21 and the 2016 update noted a high level of uncertainty 
in the input observations, as well as the model outputs, beyond that of 
many other Atlantic shark stock assessments. The final SEDAR 21 stock 
assessment update report was made available in September 2016 and is 
available on the SEDAR Web site (http://sedarweb.org/sedar-21).
    Despite including much of the same data as those used in the 2014 
ESA Dusky Shark Status Review Report (McCandless et al., 2014), which 
suggested mostly positive trends in dusky shark relative abundance, the 
2016 assessment update concluded that the stock is still overfished and 
experiencing overfishing, although the level of overfishing has 
decreased compared to previous assessments and is low. Specifically, 
Spawning Stock Fecundity (SSF) relative to SSFMSY (proxy 
biomass target) ranges from 0.41 to 0.64 (i.e., overfished) (median = 
0.53). The fishing mortality rate (F) in 2015 relative to 
FMSY is estimated to be 1.08-2.92 (median = 1.18) (values >1 
indicate overfishing).
    The rebuilding year was also updated according to the new model 
projections. The target rebuilding year was calculated as the amount of 
time needed for the stock to reach the target (SSFMSY) with 
a 70% probability in the absence of fishing mortality (F=0) plus one 
mean

[[Page 71674]]

generation time (40 years). The updated projections estimate that the 
target rebuilding years range from 2084-2204, with a median of 2107. 
The previous rebuilding year under SEDAR 21 was 2108.
    In order to achieve rebuilding by 2107 with a 50% probability, the 
final models projected that F on the stock would have to be reduced 24-
80% (median = 35%) from 2015 levels. The assessment update states that 
the stock can sustain small amounts of fishing mortality during its 
rebuilding. When developing measures to address overfishing or 
rebuilding in HMS fisheries, NMFS' general approach is that measures 
should have at least a 50-percent probability of success in achieving 
those goals. For Atlantic highly migratory sharks, however, NMFS has, 
since 1999, typically used a 70-percent probability for sharks, in 
light of their late age to maturity, reproduction, population growth 
rate, and other considerations. Given particular issues specific to the 
2016 SEDAR 21 dusky shark assessment update (explained below), NMFS 
used the F reduction associated with the 50-percent probability to 
develop Draft Amendment 5b.
    While peer reviewers did not identify any issues with how the 2016 
assessment update was conducted, SEDAR 21 and the 2016 update noted a 
high level of uncertainty in the input observations, as well as the 
model outputs, beyond that of many other Atlantic shark stock 
assessments. Data on dusky sharks is limited, given the retention 
prohibition and fact that interactions with prohibited sharks are rare 
events, and dusky shark sharks are often misidentified. Data input to 
the models came from different types of fishing vessels/gears and time 
series collected by different entities, including the Atlantic Shark 
Bottom Longline Observer Program, Shark Bottom Longline Research 
Fishery, the Atlantic Pelagic Observer Program, the recreational Large 
Pelagics Survey, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's Bottom 
Longline Survey, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science's Bottom 
Longline Survey. Based on these data, the five plausible model 
scenarios in the 2016 assessment update produced a very wide range of 
estimates (overfishing and overfished status) and outcomes (F 
reductions, rebuilding timelines, etc.). In light of the range of 
estimates and outcomes, NMFS used the median of the five scenarios in 
its development of measures in Draft Amendment 5b to address 
overfishing and rebuilding of dusky sharks. Given the range of 
plausible scenarios from the assessment update, using the median of 
multiple scenarios is an acceptable method because it is an objective 
approach for reconciling a range of management options. It is also 
consistent with the management approach to similar situations in other 
fisheries (e.g., New England Fishery Management Council's Scientific 
and Statistical Committee's recommendation for yellowtail flounder in 
September 2009; Scott et al. 2016).
    Because of the above issues, NMFS decided it was appropriate from a 
scientific, technical perspective to use the F reduction associated 
with the 50-percent probability when developing Draft Amendment 5b. 
While NMFS typically uses a 70-percent probability for Atlantic highly 
migratory shark species, the 2016 update has a higher level of 
uncertainty than other shark assessments and presents a more 
pessimistic view of stock status than was expected based on our 
preliminary review of the same information and other available 
information. Such information includes the information reviewed in the 
ESA Status Review, reductions in U.S. fleet fishing effort due to 
management actions, and updated age and growth information indicating 
that dusky sharks are more productive than previously thought (Natanson 
et al. 2014). This information could not be used in the 2016 assessment 
update, because assessment updates only incorporate data inputs (e.g., 
time series, life history parameters, etc.) that were previously vetted 
through the SEDAR process and approved as part of the most recent 
benchmark assessment. Here, that was the 2011 benchmark stock 
assessment (SEDAR 21). Based on its review of the 2016 update, 
understanding about the operation of the HMS fisheries under current 
management measures, and other available information, the F estimate 
associated with the 50-percent probability more accurately reflects 
current fishing pressure and accounts for the new information on dusky 
shark productivity than the F estimate associated with the 70-percent 
probability. From a statistical perspective, the wider confidence band 
in the projections results in the F estimate associated with a 70-
percent probability being substantially lower than the apical value. 
Thus, the F reduction associated with 70-percent goes well beyond what 
we would consider appropriately precautionary even for species with 
relatively slow life history such as sharks (refer to the Amendment 5b 
DEIS for more details; see ADDRESSES). NMFS also notes that the 
rebuilding year (i.e., length of time the species could rebuild with no 
fishing mortality plus one mean generation time) was calculated using a 
70-percent probability, as is typically done in assessments, which 
additionally increases the likelihood of achieving rebuilding within 
the mandated time period.
    Therefore, based on the 2016 assessment update, NMFS needs to 
reduce dusky shark fishing mortality by approximately 35% relative to 
2015 levels to rebuild the stock by the year 2107. NMFS also needs to 
address overfishing, but the level of overfishing is not high (median 
F2015/FMSY is 1.18). NMFS solicits public comment 
on its approach in Draft Amendment 5b based on the 2016 update, 
particularly ideas on different approaches and any scientific support 
for them.

Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs)

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each FMP establish a 
mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level such that overfishing does not 
occur, including measures to ensure accountability (AMs) (16 U.S.C. 
1853(a)(15)). In 2010, NMFS addressed these requirements for Atlantic 
highly migratory shark stocks in Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP (Amendment 3) (NMFS 2010), including sharks in the prohibited 
shark complex, which includes dusky sharks. Draft Amendment 5b 
clarifies that the ACL for the 19 species of sharks in the prohibited 
shark complex is zero. NMFS believes that an ACL of zero is appropriate 
and, along with existing and proposed conservation and management 
measures, will prevent overfishing.
    In its proposed revisions to the NS 1 guidelines (80 FR 2786; 
January 20, 2015), NMFS explains in Sec.  600.310(g)(3) that if an ACL 
is set equal to zero and the AM for the fishery is a closure that 
prohibits fishing for a stock, additional AMs are not required if only 
small amounts of catch (including bycatch) occur, and the catch is 
unlikely to result in overfishing. According to the available analyses, 
prohibited shark species--basking sharks (Campana 2008), night sharks 
(Carlson et al. 2008), sand tiger sharks (Carlson et al., 2009), white 
sharks (Curtis et al. 2014), and bigeye thresher sharks (Young et al. 
2016)--are not experiencing overfishing. While such analyses have not 
been completed for all other prohibited shark species, there is no 
information suggesting that overfishing is occurring on other members 
of this complex. In addition, commercial and recreational retention of 
prohibited sharks is prohibited, and there is only a small

[[Page 71675]]

amount of bycatch occurring for the complex. The annual number of 
observed bycatch mortalities of prohibited sharks ranged from 293 to 
1,829 sharks per year over the time series, and the most recent 
observed three-year average annual mortality for all sharks in the 
complex was 498 sharks (refer to the DEIS for this action for more 
detail; see ADDRESSES).
    NMFS acknowledges that, in addition to the small amount of bycatch, 
there is also information on a small amount of occasional prohibited 
shark landings. Based on observer and other data and input from the HMS 
AP, NMFS believes that these landings most likely are due to 
misidentification issues and lack of awareness of shark fishing 
regulations, which would be addressed through this action. Even though 
dusky sharks are experiencing overfishing, NMFS believes that an ACL of 
zero is still appropriate for the prohibited shark complex. The 
estimated level of overfishing for dusky sharks is not high (median 
F2015/FMSY is 1.18; values >1 indicates 
overfishing), and measures under Draft Amendment 5b and this proposed 
rule are expected to prevent this overfishing (See ``Proposed 
Measures'' below.) NMFS notes that there would be policy and 
scientific/data concerns if we were to specify an ACL other than zero. 
As noted earlier, there was a high level of uncertainty in the 2016 
assessment update, given limited data on dusky sharks, multiple data 
sources, and five plausible model scenarios. The update had five 
different total allowable catch (TAC) estimates ranging from 7,117 to 
47,400 lb (3.2 to 21.5 mt) dressed weight (median = 27,346 lb (12.4 mt) 
dressed weight). NMFS does not have a basis for picking one model over 
another, and is concerned that setting an ACL based on the highly 
uncertain TAC estimates could encourage increased catch. Retention of 
dusky sharks is prohibited, thus NMFS believes that the ACL for dusky 
sharks (along with other species in the prohibited shark complex) 
should be zero.
    NMFS is proposing additional measures in Draft Amendment 5b and 
this proposed rule to prevent overfishing of dusky sharks (see 
``Proposed Measures'' below). These measures are in addition to 
previously-adopted shark management measures. NMFS considers these and 
other management measures for dusky sharks (e.g., prohibition on 
retention) to be AMs. After considering the proposed revisions to the 
NS1 guidelines at 50 CFR 600.310(g)(3), NMFS does not believe 
additional AMs are needed for dusky sharks or other prohibited sharks. 
Over the past years, NMFS has taken significant regulatory action that 
has reduced fishing effort and mortality on shark species. Most 
significantly, Amendment 2 regulations, which were implemented in July 
2008 (73 FR 35778, June 24, 2008, as corrected at 73 FR 40658, July 15 
2008), dramatically changed how the directed shark fishery (which had 
frequent interactions with dusky sharks) operates by, among other 
things, reducing the commercial trip limit from 4,000 lb (1.81 mt) dw 
to 36 non-sandbar LCS per trip (approximately 1,213 lb or 0.55 mt dw), 
significantly reducing the sandbar quota and prohibiting the retention 
of sandbar sharks outside a limited shark research fishery, and 
requiring that sharks be landed with their fins attached. Because dusky 
sharks have a similar distribution to sandbar sharks, and they were 
frequently caught together, measures that reduced sandbar shark catches 
also reduced dusky shark bycatch. To address bycatch of dusky sharks on 
bottom longline gear, the quota for sandbar sharks was reduced by 80 
percent, leaving only a small, very closely monitored research fishery. 
Other measures to reduce dusky shark bycatch, which remain in place, 
included limiting the number of vessels authorized to land sandbar 
sharks and setting a finite number of trips that would be taken 
targeting sandbar sharks in the research fishery. Once this quota was 
met, there would be no more targeting or possession of sandbar sharks 
and other shark species within the shark research fishery. Implementing 
a more restrictive retention limit for non-sandbar LCS (e.g., 36 non-
sandbar LCS/vessel/trip for directed permit holders) was also adopted 
to result in reduced fishing effort targeting sharks with bottom 
longline (BLL) gear. NMFS also adopted measures that would not allow 
dusky sharks to be collected for public display, limiting the number of 
dusky sharks authorized for research, not allowing certain species of 
sharks that look like dusky sharks to be possessed in recreational 
fisheries, maintaining the mid-Atlantic shark closed area, and 
implementing additional time/area closures for BLL gear as recommended 
by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in its Amendment 14. 
These measures have already reduced effort and fishing mortality, which 
will increase the likelihood of rebuilding dusky sharks.
    Additionally, Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP in 2015 
effected management measures in the pelagic longline fishery by 
implementing measures to control bluefin tuna bycatch in that fishery. 
As a result, pelagic longline fishery management and monitoring has 
changed significantly and, at least in the initial years of management 
under these controls, effort has decreased.
    The time series NMFS used to evaluate the impact of conservation 
and management measures and fishing mortality on the prohibited shark 
complex begins in 2008 to coincide with the implementation of Amendment 
2 and ends in 2015, the most recent year for which data are available. 
Bycatch data are not available in as timely a manner as data on landed 
catch, and interactions with prohibited sharks are rare events, which 
can be highly variable from year to year. Thus, three-year rolling 
averages were used to smooth interannual variability in the observed 
catches.
    On an annual basis, NMFS will continue to monitor the prohibited 
shark complex, based on a comparison of the most recent three-year 
average mortality to previous three-year averages to evaluate the 
impact of conservation and management measures, and evaluate fishing 
mortality on the prohibited shark complex. NMFS anticipates that 
bycatch of dusky and other prohibited sharks will continue to occur; in 
other words, the three-year averages will be higher than zero. However, 
small amounts of bycatch are permissible where the ACL is set to zero 
and the bycatch is small and does not lead to overfishing. For the 
reasons discussed above, NMFS does not believe that further AMs are 
needed to prevent overfishing. If significant changes in the three-year 
average mortality occur, NMFS would evaluate trends in relative 
abundance data from species within the prohibited shark complex and 
evaluate current fisheries practices and look for patterns in bycatch 
mortality of species within the complex to determine if additional 
measures are needed to address overfishing.
    NMFS solicits public comment on its approach to the ACL/AMs for the 
prohibited shark complex and whether other approaches might address the 
scientific and management concerns noted above.

Proposed Measures

    The objectives of Draft Amendment 5b are to end overfishing and 
rebuild the dusky shark stock. This section summarizes NMFS' proposed, 
preferred measures. NMFS expects that these measures will prevent 
overfishing and achieve at least a 35% mortality reduction for dusky 
sharks to ensure stock rebuilding with at least 50%

[[Page 71676]]

probability in conjunction with the measures already in place. A 
description of other alternatives analyzed is provided in the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) summary, below. NMFS' detailed 
analysis of a range of alternatives is in the DEIS for Draft Amendment 
5b (see ADDRESSES for how to get a copy of the DEIS). In developing the 
alternatives, NMFS considered the existing rebuilding plan, other 
conservation and management measures that have been implemented in the 
HMS fisheries since 2008 and that have affected the shark fisheries or 
shark bycatch in other fisheries, public response to the results of 
SEDAR 21 and the 2016 SEDAR 21 update, public comments received on 
Draft Amendment 5 and the Amendment A5b Predraft and comments at 
Advisory Panel meetings during the course of development of this 
action.
    A number of alternatives that were considered and/or commented on 
during the development of this action are not preferred alternatives at 
this time, because they are not needed to meet the objectives of the 
amendment and would result in negative economic impacts, would not meet 
the objectives of the amendment, would not be logistically/
administratively feasible, are not scientifically supportable, and/or 
they would result in other unnecessary, negative impacts, as described 
in the DEIS (see ADDRESSES). In general terms, these non-preferred 
alternatives included requirements for vessels to carry shark 
identification placards, prohibiting recreational retention of all 
ridgeback sharks, increasing the recreational minimum size limit, 
allowing only catch and release of all sharks in the recreational 
fishery, limiting the number of hooks that could be deployed by pelagic 
longline vessels, dusky shark time-area closures, closure of the 
pelagic longline fishery, and individual dusky shark bycatch quotas.
    As explained in this proposed rule and the DEIS, NMFS has already 
taken significant actions that reduce fishing effort and mortality. 
After extensive review of available management measures, NMFS has 
determined that the proposed measures will prevent overfishing and 
rebuild dusky sharks. However, we specifically request comment from the 
public on other potential management measures and any scientific, 
policy, or other support for them. In response to public comment, NMFS 
may make changes in Final Amendment 5b and the final rule by modifying 
the proposed measures or adopting different or additional measures, 
which are not currently preferred.
Recreational Measures
    The two proposed recreational measures address permitting 
(Alternative A2) and gear use (Alternative A6a). The first proposed 
measure would require HMS permit holders that recreationally fish for, 
retain, possess, or land sharks to obtain a ``shark endorsement,'' 
which would require completing an online shark identification and 
fishing regulation training course, before they will be permitted to 
fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks. This would include HMS 
Angling and Charter/Headboat permit holders, as well as General 
category and Swordfish General Commercial permit holders when 
participating in a registered HMS fishing tournament. Obtaining the 
shark endorsement would be included in the annual HMS Angling, Charter/
Headboat, Atlantic tunas General category, and Swordfish General 
Commercial permit application or annual renewal process and would not 
result in any additional fees beyond the cost of the permit itself. 
NMFS requests public input on how to most effectively implement the 
requirement through this process, including the appropriate effective 
date and implementation strategy. Unlike changing permit categories 
(which can only be done within 45 calendar days of the date of issuance 
of the permit), vessel owners could obtain a shark endorsement, which 
would be added to their relevant permit, throughout the year. An online 
quiz, administered during the application or renewal process, would be 
required in order to obtain the shark endorsement. This online quiz 
would focus on identification of prohibited species (e.g., dusky 
sharks), current recreational rules and regulations, and safe handling 
instructions. Currently, retention of dusky sharks is prohibited in the 
recreational fishery. Mortality or landings in the recreational 
fishery, then, is likely a result of either species misidentification 
or a lack of knowledge about prohibited shark species regulations or 
safe handling to minimize harm to accidentally caught fish. The 
application process for the shark endorsement would also provide an 
opportunity for focused outreach, and the list of shark endorsement 
holders would allow for more targeted surveys, increasing the 
reliability of recreational shark catch estimates. As a result of this 
measure, NMFS expects accidental retention of dusky sharks to decrease 
and for dusky shark fishing mortality to decrease in recreational 
fisheries. Therefore, implementing this measure would likely result in 
direct short- and long-term moderate beneficial ecological impacts.
    The second proposed measure would require HMS permit holders that 
recreationally fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks (the same 
permit holders as those described above) to use circle hooks when 
fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing sharks. Any shark caught 
on a hook other than a circle hook would have to be released. This 
requirement is intended to apply across the recreational shark fishery. 
To ensure that the measure encompasses all shark fishing activity, we 
also specify that a person on board an HMS-permitted vessel fishing 
with natural baits and using wire or heavy (200 lb test or greater) 
monofilament or fluorocarbon leaders (i.e., the terminal tackle most 
commonly used for shark fishing) would be presumed to be fishing for 
sharks. NMFS is specifically inviting public comment on whether this 
approach will ensure that the measure applies to the entire fishery or 
whether different indicators of recreational shark fishing should be 
adopted.
    By requiring circle hooks across the recreational shark fishery, 
dusky shark mortality is expected to decrease. Most evidence suggests 
that circle hooks reduce shark at-vessel and post-release mortality 
rates without significantly reducing catchability compared to J-hooks, 
although it varies by species, gear configuration, bait, and other 
factors. Willey et al. (2016) found that 3% of sharks caught 
recreationally with circle hooks were deep hooked while 6% caught on J-
hooks were deep hooked. Campana et al. (2009) observed that 96% of 
sharks that were deep hooked were severely injured or dead while 97% of 
sharks that were hooked superficially (mouth or jaw) were released 
healthy and with no apparent trauma. As deep hooked sharks are more 
likely to die, Willey et al.'s (2016) results indicate circle hooks 
could reduce mortality of sharks deep-hooked by J-hooks by 
approximately 48 percent (i.e., a 50 percent reduction from 96 percent 
deep hooked sharks). For this reason, this alternative would likely 
have direct moderate beneficial impacts in both the short- and long-
term for dusky sharks. Requiring these hooks whenever this gear/bait 
combination is used and further specifying that sharks may not be 
retained unless circle hooks have been used is expected to reduce dusky 
shark mortality because dusky sharks that are inadvertently caught in 
the recreational fishery would be more easily released in better 
condition,

[[Page 71677]]

reducing dead discards and post-release mortality.
    Under these recreational measures combined, HMS permitted 
recreational vessels without a shark endorsement and/or not fishing 
with circle hooks would be prohibited from retaining any sharks.
Commercial Measures
    In total, the DEIS considers nine main commercial alternatives that 
cover education, outreach, gear, and time/area measures for pelagic 
longline, bottom longline, and shark gillnet fisheries. The four 
commercial fishery measures that are proposed would address dusky shark 
post-release mortality (Alternatives B3 and B9), avoidance (Alternative 
B6), and outreach and education (Alternatives B5 and B6) and thus would 
decrease fishing mortality of dusky sharks in the commercial fisheries. 
The first proposed measure would require that all pelagic longline 
fishermen release all sharks that are not being boarded or retained by 
using a dehooker, or by cutting the gangion no more than three feet 
from the hook. This alternative would reduce post-release mortality on 
dusky sharks because using a dehooker or cutting the gangion no more 
than three feet from the hook would reduce the amount of trailing gear 
attached to released dusky sharks. A study on recreationally caught 
thresher sharks (Sepulveda et al. 2015), suggested that thresher sharks 
that had ~2 m of trailing gear had 88% higher mortality rates than 
those without. While this study focuses on thresher sharks and not 
dusky sharks, its conclusion regarding the effects of trailing gear on 
post-release mortality rates of sharks can be presumed to be generally 
applicable to other sharks, although further research would be needed 
to better quantify the percent mortality reductions that could be 
expected under different species and gear combinations. NMFS Tech Memo 
OPR-29 on marine turtle mortality indicates that reducing gear left on 
sea turtles reduces post-interaction mortality of mouth-hooked turtles 
by 25-33%, further supporting the approach that reducing trailing gear 
on animals generally improves post-release survival. Because it would 
apply to all sharks that are not being retained, it would also reduce 
misidentification problems that occur in identifying dusky sharks from 
other shark species, because fishermen would have to cut the gangion 
closer to the shark, allowing a better view for identification 
purposes. Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have 
direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.
    The second proposed measure would require additional training on 
shark identification and safe handling for HMS permitted pelagic 
longline, bottom longline, and shark gillnet vessels. The course would 
be taught in conjunction with current Protected Species Safe Handling, 
Release, and Identification workshops that these vessel owners and 
operators are already required to attend. The training course would 
provide information regarding shark identification and regulations, as 
well as best practices to avoid interacting with dusky sharks and how 
to minimize mortality of dusky sharks and other prohibited species 
caught as bycatch. This training course requirement provides outreach 
to those who are likely to interact with dusky sharks, and should 
decrease interactions and post-release mortality of dusky sharks. 
Implementing this measure could result in direct, moderate, beneficial 
ecological impacts after these vessel owners and operators complete the 
training course.
    In the third proposed measure, NMFS would develop additional 
outreach materials for commercial fisheries regarding shark 
identification, and require that all HMS permitted pelagic longline, 
bottom longline, and shark gillnet vessels abide by a dusky shark fleet 
communication and relocation protocol. The protocol would require 
vessels to report the location of dusky shark interactions over the 
radio to other vessels in the area and that subsequent fishing sets on 
that fishing trip could be no closer than 1 nautical mile from where 
the encounter took place. Providing the fleet with more information 
regarding dusky shark locations and avoiding areas and conditions where 
dusky sharks are located should reduce dusky shark bycatch. This 
additional awareness from enhanced outreach methods and the fleet 
communication and relocation protocol would have direct short- and 
long-term minor beneficial ecological impacts as it would help reduce 
bycatch of dusky sharks.
    The fourth proposed measure would require the use of circle hooks 
by HMS directed limited access shark permit holders fishing with bottom 
longline gear. Circle hooks are already required in the pelagic 
longline fishery, and this would extend that requirement to the bottom 
longline fishery to help reduce dusky shark mortality. Currently, 
approximately 25% of bottom longline vessels do not solely use circle 
hooks, so this measure would result in additional reductions in dusky 
shark post-release mortality on those vessels that switch to circle 
hooks. As in the recreational fishery circle hook measure described 
above, implementing a circle hook requirement would reduce post-release 
mortality rates and have direct moderate beneficial impacts in both the 
short- and long-term for dusky sharks.

Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on the alternatives and analyses 
described in this proposed rule and contained in Draft Amendment 5b and 
its DEIS, IRFA and RIR. Comments may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax. Comments may also be submitted at a 
public hearing (see Public Hearings and Special Accommodations below). 
We solicit comments on this proposed rule by December 22, 2016 (see 
DATES and ADDRESSES).

Public Hearings

    Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax and comments may also be submitted at 
a public hearing. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by 
December 22, 2016. During the comment period, NMFS will hold 6 public 
hearings and 1 conference call for this proposed rule. The hearing 
locations will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Gu[yacute] DuBeck at 301-427-8503, at least 7 
days prior to the meeting. NMFS has also asked to present information 
on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 5b to the Caribbean, Gulf of 
Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England Fishery 
Management Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commissions at their meetings during the public comment period. Please 
see their meeting notices for dates, times, and locations. In addition, 
NMFS will have an HMS Advisory Panel meeting on December 1-2, 2016, to 
discuss this rulemaking. NMFS will announce the location and times of 
HMS Advisory Panel meeting in a future Federal Register notice.

[[Page 71678]]



              Table 1--Dates, Times, and Locations of Upcoming Public Hearings and Conference Call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Venue                    Date/time           Meeting location        Location contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing.............  November 9, 2016, 5     Manalapan, NJ........  Monmouth County Public Library--
                              p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Headquarters, 125 Symmes Road,
                                                                             Manalapan, NJ 07726.
Public Hearing.............  November 15, 2016,      Newport, RI..........  Hotel Viking, 1 Bellevua Ave,
                              5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.                            Newport, RI 02840.
Public Hearing.............  November 15, 2016, 5    Belle Chasse, LA.....  Belle Chasse Branch Library, 8442
                              p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Louisiana 23, Belle Chasse, LA
                                                                             70037.
Public Hearing.............  November 16, 2016, 5    Houston, TX..........  Clear Lake City-County Freeman
                              p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Branch Library, 16616 Diana Lane,
                                                                             Houston, TX 77062.
Public Hearing.............  November 21, 2016, 5    Melbourne, FL........  Melbourne Public Library, 540 E. Fee
                              p.m.-8 p.m.                                    Ave, Melbourne, FL 32901.
Public Hearing.............  November 28, 2016, 5    Manteo, NC...........  Commissioners Meeting Room, Dare
                              p.m.-8 p.m.                                    County Administration Building, 954
                                                                             Marshall C. Collins Dr., Manteo, NC
                                                                             27954.
Conference call............  December 12, 2016, 2    .....................  To participate in conference call,
                              p.m.-4 p.m.                                    call: (888) 790-3514.
                                                                            Passcode: 1029249.
                                                                            To participate in webinar, RSVP at:
                                                                             https://noaaevents2.webex.com/mw3100/mywebex/default.do?nomenu=true&siteurl=noaaevents2&service=6&rnd=0.5722618598976709&main_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnoaaevents2.webex.com%2Fec3100%2Feventcenter%2Fevent%2FeventAction.do%3FtheAction%3Ddetail%26%26%26EMK%3D4832534b0000000274c902c10b1213f88484f05821429342e756fdecbad04e74e804da6c498aaf5f%26siteurl%3Dnoaaevents2%26confViewID%3D422630081%26encryptTicket%3DSDJTSwAAAAJC7aKRCiFIqT_gqFltkrAG9vq8AwtwiNksxtKEngpmzQ2%26.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). At the beginning of the 
conference call, the moderator will explain how the conference call 
will be conducted and how and when attendees can provide comments. 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 may be asked to leave the hearing or may not be allowed to 
speak during the conference call.

Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to 
further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared a DEIS for this proposed rule that discusses the 
impact on the environment that would result from this rule. A copy of 
the DEIS is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Notice of 
Availability of the DEIS is publishing in the Federal Register on the 
same day as this proposed rule. A summary of the impacts of the 
alternatives considered is described above.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed rule would require HMS-permitted recreational 
fishermen to obtain a shark endorsement in order to fish for, retain, 
possess, or land sharks. Public comment is sought regarding: whether 
this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden 
estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send 
comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information 
to (enter office name) at the ADDRESSES above, and by email to 
[email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy 
of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Description of the Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    As described in the preamble of this rule and in the Draft 
Amendment 5b DEIS (see ADDRESSES), the proposed action is designed to 
provide measures in addition to those previously adopted to further 
address the overfished and overfishing occurring status of the dusky 
shark stock. NMFS previously considered alternatives for management of 
dusky sharks in Draft Amendment 5, which proposed measures that were 
designed to reduce fishing mortality and effort in order to prevent 
overfishing and rebuild various overfished Atlantic shark species, 
including dusky sharks, while ensuring that a limited sustainable shark 
fishery for certain species could be maintained consistent with legal 
obligations and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. After reviewing all of 
the comments received,

[[Page 71679]]

NMFS determined further analyses were warranted on measures pertaining 
to dusky sharks in a separate FMP amendment (Amendment 5b), EIS, and 
this proposed rule.
Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
    The objectives of, and legal basis for, this proposed rule are 
summarized in the preamble of this rule and in the Draft Amendment 5b 
DEIS (see ADDRESSES).
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Proposed Rule Would Apply
    This proposed rule is expected to directly affect commercial 
pelagic longline, bottom longline, shark gillnet, and recreational 
shark fishing vessels that possess HMS permits. To fish for Atlantic 
HMS, pelagic longline vessels must possess an Atlantic shark limited 
access permit, an Atlantic swordfish limited access permit, and an 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit. For the recreational 
management measures, the proposed management measures would only 
directly apply to small entities that are Charter/Headboat permit 
holders that provide for-hire trips that target sharks. Other HMS 
recreational fishing permit holders are considered individuals, not 
small entities.
    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size 
standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary 
industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily 
engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a 
small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not 
dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has 
combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its 
affiliated operations worldwide. The Small Business Administration 
(SBA) has established size standards for all other major industry 
sectors in the U.S., including the scenic and sightseeing 
transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which 
includes charter/party boat entities. The Small Business Administration 
(SBA) has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one with average 
annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million.
    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the 
recreational management measures, HMS Angling (Recreational) category 
permits are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered 
businesses or small entities for purposes of the RFA. Additionally, 
while Atlantic Tunas General category and Swordfish General commercial 
permit holders hold commercial permits and are usually considered small 
entities, because the proposed management measures would only affect 
them when they are fishing under the recreational regulations for 
sharks during a registered tournament, NMFS is not considering them 
small entities for this rule. However, because vessels with the HMS 
Charter/Headboat category permit are for-hire vessels, these permit 
holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes. At this 
time, NMFS is unaware of any charter/headboat businesses that could 
exceed the SBA receipt/revenue thresholds for small entities. Overall, 
the recreational alternatives would impact a portion of the 3,596 HMS 
Charter/Headboat permit holders interested in shark fishing.
    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the 
commercial management measures, the average annual revenue per active 
pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 
active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 
million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic 
longline vessel between 2006 and 2015 was less than $1.9 million, well 
below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing 
businesses of $11 million. Other non-longline HMS commercial fishing 
vessels typically generally earn less revenue than pelagic longline 
vessels. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic HMS commercial permit 
holders to be small entities. The preferred commercial alternatives 
would apply to the 280 Atlantic tunas Longline category permit holders 
and 224 directed shark permit holders. Of these 280 permit holders, 
only 136 have Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQ) shares required to go 
commercial pelagic longline fishing.
    NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not 
likely directly affect any small organizations or small government 
jurisdictions defined under RFA. More information regarding the 
description of the fisheries affected, and the categories and number of 
permit holders, can be found in Chapter 3 of the Draft Amendment 5b 
DEIS (see ADDRESSES).
Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
    Several of the preferred alternatives in Draft Amendment 5b would 
result in reporting, record-keeping, and compliance requirements that 
may require new Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) filings and some of the 
preferred alternatives would modify existing reporting and record-
keeping requirements, and add compliance requirements. NMFS estimates 
that the number of small entities that would be subject to these 
requirements would include the Atlantic tuna Longline category (280), 
Directed and Incidental Shark Limited Access (224 and 275, 
respectively), and HMS Charter/Headboat category (3,596) permit 
holders.

Recreational Alternatives

    The preferred recreational alternative, A2, would require 
recreational fishermen fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing 
sharks to obtain a shark endorsement in addition to other existing 
permit requirements. Obtaining the shark endorsement would be included 
in the online HMS permit application and renewal processes and would 
require the applicant to learn about prohibited shark species 
identification, regulations, and safe handling guidelines, and then 
complete a short quiz focusing on shark species identification. The 
applicant would simply need to indicate the desire to obtain the shark 
endorsement, after which he or she would be directed to a short online 
quiz that would take minimal time to complete. Adding the endorsement 
to the permit and requiring applicants to take the online quiz to 
obtain the endorsement will require a modification to the existing PRA 
for the permits.

Commercial Measures Alternatives

    Alternative B5, a preferred alternative, would require completion 
of shark identification and fishing regulation training as a new part 
of all Safe Handling and Release Workshops for HMS pelagic longline 
(PLL), BLL, and shark gillnet vessel owners and operators. The training 
course would provide information regarding shark identification and 
regulations, as well as best practices to avoid interacting with dusky 
sharks and how to minimize mortality of dusky sharks caught as bycatch. 
Compliance with this course requirement would be mandatory and be a 
condition for permit renewal. A certificate would be issued to all 
commercial pelagic longline vessel owners indicating compliance with 
this requirement and the certificate would be required for permit 
renewal.
    Alternative B6, a preferred alternative, would require that all 
vessels with an Atlantic shark commercial permit and fishing with 
pelagic longline, bottom longline, or shark gillnet gear abide by a 
dusky shark fleet communication and relocation protocol. The protocol 
would require vessels to report the location of

[[Page 71680]]

dusky shark interactions over the radio to other pelagic longline, 
bottom longline, or shark gillnet vessels in the area and that 
subsequent fishing sets on that fishing trip could be no closer than 1 
nautical mile (nm) from where the encounter took place.Identification 
of All Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict 
with the Proposed Rule
    The proposed rule would not conflict with any relevant regulations, 
Federal or otherwise. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to 
the Proposed Rule That Accomplish the Stated Objectives of the 
Applicable Statutes and That Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact 
of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities
    The RFA (5 U.S.C. 603 (c) (1)-(4)) lists four general categories of 
``significant'' alternatives that would assist an agency in the 
development of significant alternatives. These categories of 
alternatives are:

    1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities;
    2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
    3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and,
    4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.

    In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent 
with all legal requirements, 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. Under the third category, ``use of performance rather 
than design standards,'' NMFS considers Alternative B5, which would 
provide additional training for pelagic longline, bottom longline, and 
shark gillnet fishermen, to be a performance standard rather than a 
design standard. Alternative B5's training requirement will apply to 
all commercial vessels and take place in conjunction with other 
currently required training workshops. As described below, NMFS 
analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and 
provides the rationale for identifying the preferred alternative to 
achieve the desired objective.
    In this rulemaking, NMFS considers two different categories of 
alternatives. The first category, recreational alternatives, covers 
seven main alternatives that address various strategies of reducing 
dusky shark mortality in the recreational fishery. The second category 
of alternatives, commercial measures, considers eight main alternatives 
that address various strategies of reducing dusky shark mortality in 
the commercial fishery.
    The potential impacts these alternatives may have on small entities 
have been analyzed and are discussed in the following sections. The 
preferred alternatives include: Alternative A2, Alternative A6a, 
Alternative B3, Alternative B5, Alternative B6, and Alternative B9. The 
economic impacts that would occur under these preferred alternatives 
were compared with the other alternatives to determine if economic 
impacts to small entities could be minimized while still accomplishing 
the stated objectives of this rule.
Recreational Alternatives
Alternative A1
    Alternative A1, the no action alternative, would not implement any 
management measures in the recreational shark fishery to decrease 
mortality of dusky sharks, likely resulting in direct, short- and long-
term neutral economic impacts. Since there would be no changes to the 
fishing requirements, there would be no economic impacts on small 
entities. If more restrictive measures are required in the long-term 
under MSA or other statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, 
moderate adverse economic impacts may occur. NMFS does not prefer this 
alternative at this time, given that the purpose of this action is to 
address overfishing and rebuilding.
Alternative A2
    Under Alternative A2, a preferred alternative, HMS Angling and 
Charter/Headboat permit holders would be required to obtain a shark 
endorsement, which requires completion of an online shark 
identification and fishing regulation training course and quiz in order 
to fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks. Obtaining the shark 
endorsement would be included in the online HMS permit application and 
renewal processes and would require the applicant to complete a 
training course focusing on shark species identification, fishing 
regulations, and safe handling. This alternative would likely result in 
no economic impacts since there would be no additional cost to the 
applicant and only a small additional investment in time. Obtaining the 
shark endorsement would be a part of the normal HMS permit application 
or renewal. The applicant would simply need to indicate the desire to 
obtain the shark endorsement, after which he or she would be directed 
to an online training course and quiz. The goal of the training course 
is to help prevent anglers from landing prohibited or undersized 
sharks, and thus, help rebuild stocks. Furthermore, the list of shark 
endorsement holders would allow for more targeted surveys and outreach, 
likely increasing the reliability of recreational shark catch 
estimates. This preferred alternative helps achieve the objectives of 
this proposed rule while minimizing any significant economic impacts on 
small entities.
Alternative A3
    Alternative A3 would require participants in the recreational shark 
fishery (Angling and Charter/Headboat permit holders) to carry an 
approved shark identification placard on board the vessel when fishing 
for sharks. This alternative would likely result in short- and long-
term minor economic impacts. The cost of obtaining a placard, which 
would be provided by NMFS, whether by obtaining a pre-printed one or 
self-printing, would be modest. To comply with the requirement of this 
alternative, the angler would need to keep the placard on board the 
vessel when fishing for sharks and, since carrying other documents such 
as permits and boat registration is already required, this is unlikely 
to be a large inconvenience. This alternative would have slightly more 
economic impacts than Alternative A2 on small entities and would likely 
be less effective than the training course in Alternative A2.
Alternative A4
    Under Alternative A4, NMFS would extend the existing prohibition on 
the retention of certain ridgeback sharks (bignose, Caribbean reef, 
dusky, Galapagos, night, sandbar, and silky sharks) to include the rest 
of the ridgeback sharks, namely oceanic whitetip, tiger sharks, and 
smoothhound sharks, which currently may be retained by recreational 
shark fishermen (HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat permit holders) under 
certain circumstances. This alternative would simplify compliance with 
the ridgeback prohibition, which includes dusky sharks, for the 
majority of fishermen targeting sharks. Dusky shark mortality in the 
recreational fishery is in part due to misidentification of dusky 
sharks (which are prohibited) as one the retainable species. This 
alternative, however, could also potentially have adverse economic 
impacts for a small subset of fishermen that target oceanic whitetip, 
tiger, and smoothhound

[[Page 71681]]

sharks. These adverse impacts would be quite small, however, for 
oceanic whitetip and tiger sharks because few fishermen recreationally 
fish for these species. Based on MRIP data, however, this alternative 
could have considerable impacts on fishermen targeting sharks in the 
smoothhound shark complex because smoothhound sharks are commonly 
caught by recreational fishermen. Recreational fishermen with only 
state-issued permits would still be able to retain smoothhound sharks 
(those that hold an HMS permit must abide by Federal regulations, even 
in state waters). Alternative A4 would likely result in both direct 
short- and long-term, minor adverse economic impacts on HMS Charter/
Headboat operators if prohibiting landing of additional shark species 
reduces demand for fishing charters. While this alternative may help 
reduce dusky mortality, the other proposed measures will address 
overfishing and rebuilding without the greater economic impacts 
associated with Alternative A4.
Alternative A5
    Under Alternative A5, the minimum recreational size limit for 
authorized shark species, except for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, 
and hammerhead (great, scalloped, and smooth) sharks, would increase 
from 54 to 89 inches fork length, which is the approximate length at 
maturity for dusky sharks. Under this alternative, increasing the 
recreational size limit would likely result in both direct short- and 
long-term, moderate adverse economic impacts for recreational 
fishermen, charter/headboat operators, and tournament operators. 
Because many shark species have a maximum size below an 89 inch size 
limit, there could be reduced incentive to fish recreationally for 
sharks due to the decreased potential to legally land these fish. 
Increasing the minimum size for retention would also impact the way 
that tournaments and charter vessels operate. While the impacts of an 
89 inch fork length minimum size on tournaments awarding points for 
pelagic sharks may be lessened because these tournament participants 
target larger sharks, such as shortfin mako, blue, and thresher, that 
grow to larger than 89 inches fork length, this may not be the case for 
tournaments targeting smaller sharks. Tournaments that target smaller 
sharks, especially those that target shark species that do not reach 
sizes exceeding 89 inches fork length such as blacktip sharks, may be 
heavily impacted by this alternative. Reduced participation in such 
tournaments could potentially decrease the amount of monetary prizes 
offered to winners. Thus, implementation of this management measure 
could significantly alter the way some tournaments and charter vessels 
operate, or reduce both opportunities to fish for sharks and thus 
drastically reduce general interest and demand for recreational shark 
fishing, which could create adverse economic impacts. While this 
alternative may result in minor beneficial ecological impacts for dusky 
sharks, for the aforementioned reasons, NMFS does not prefer this 
alternative at this time.
Alternative A6a
    Sub-alternative A6a is a preferred alternative and would require 
all persons on board vessels with Atlantic HMS permits participating in 
fishing tournaments that bestow points, prizes, or awards for sharks to 
use circle hooks when fishing for or retaining sharks, and require the 
use of circle hooks by all HMS recreational permit holders when fishing 
for or retaining sharks outside of a tournament. Any sharks caught on 
non-circle hooks would have to be released. It would be presumed that 
an operator is recreationally fishing for sharks if it is fishing with 
natural bait and using wire or heavy (200 pound test or greater) 
monofilament or fluorocarbon leader. Relative to the total cost of gear 
and tackle for a typical fishing trip, the cost associated with 
switching from J-hooks to circle hooks is negligible. Thus, the 
immediate cost in switching hook type is likely minimal. However, there 
is conflicting indication that the use of circle hooks may reduce or 
increase catch per unit effort (CPUE) resulting in lower catch of 
target species. In the event that CPUE is reduced, some recreational 
fishermen may choose not to fish for sharks or to enter tournaments 
that offer awards for sharks. These missed fishing opportunities could 
result in minor adverse economic impacts in the short- and long-term. 
However, since the economic impacts are minor and circle hooks would 
likely reduce fishing mortality for dusky sharks, NMFS prefers this 
alternative at this time.
Alternative A6b
    Sub-Alternative Ab6 is similar to A6a, but instead of requiring 
circle hooks when fishing for sharks defined by deploying natural bait 
while using a wire or heavy (200 pound test or greater) monofilament or 
fluorocarbon leader, it instead requires circle hooks when fishing for 
sharks defined by deploying a 5/0 or greater size hook to fish with 
natural bait outside of a fishing tournament. This use of the hook size 
standard to determine if the trip could be targeting sharks may result 
in more recreational trips requiring circle hooks than under alterative 
A6a, but many of those trips might actually not be targeting sharks, 
but instead other large pelagic fish. The use of a heavy leader is 
probably more correlated with angling activity that is targeting 
sharks.
Alternative A6c
    Sub-Alternative A6c is similar to A6a and A6b, but restricted to 
requiring the use of circle hooks by all HMS permit holders 
participating in fishing tournaments that bestow points, prizes, or 
awards for sharks. This alternative impacts a smaller universe of 
recreational fishermen, so the adverse impacts are smaller. However, 
given the limited scope of this requirement, the benefits to reducing 
dusky shark mortality via the use of circle hooks are also more 
limited.
Alternative A7
    Alternative A7 would prohibit any HMS permit holders from retaining 
any shark species in the recreational fishery. Recreational fishermen 
may still fish for and target authorized shark species for catch and 
release. The large number of fishermen who already practice catch and 
release and the catch and release shark fishing tournaments currently 
operating would not be impacted. As this alternative would help 
eliminate accidental landings of already-prohibited dusky sharks, it 
would have minor beneficial ecological impacts. However, prohibiting 
retention of sharks could have major impacts on fishing behaviors and 
activity of other recreational shark fishermen and reduce their demand 
for charter/headboat trips. Only allowing catch and release of 
authorized sharks in the recreational fishery could impact some 
fishermen that retain sharks recreationally and tournaments that award 
points for landing sharks. Thus, prohibiting retention of Atlantic 
sharks in the recreational shark fisheries could drastically alter the 
nature of recreational shark fishing and reduce incentives to fish for 
sharks. Additionally, the reduced incentive to fish for sharks could 
negatively impact profits for the HMS Charter/Headboat industry. 
Because there could be major impacts to the recreational shark 
fisheries from this management measure, Alternative A7 would likely 
have direct short- and long-term, moderate adverse economic impacts on 
small business entities.

[[Page 71682]]

Commercial Alternatives
Alternative B1
    Under Alternative B1, the no action alternative, NMFS would not 
implement any measures to reduce dusky shark mortality in the 
commercial shark or HMS fisheries. Since no management measures would 
be implemented under this alternative, NMFS would expect fishing 
practices to remain the same and economic impacts to be neutral in the 
short-term. Dusky sharks are a prohibited species and fishermen are not 
allowed to harvest this species. Thus, there would not be any economic 
impacts on the fishery in the short-term. If more restrictive measures 
are required in the long-term under MSA or other statutes such as the 
Endangered Species Act, moderate adverse economic impacts may occur. 
NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time, given that the 
purpose of this action is to address overfishing and rebuilding.
Alternative B2
    Under Alternative B2, HMS commercial fishermen would be limited to 
750 hooks per pelagic longline set with no more than 800 assembled 
gangions onboard the vessel at any time. Based on average number of 
hooks per pelagic longline set data, the hook restriction in this 
alternative could have neutral economic impacts on fishermen targeting 
bigeye tuna, mixed tuna species, and mixed HMS species, because the 
average number of hooks used on pelagic longline sets targeting these 
species is slightly above or below the limit considered in this 
alternative. This alternative would likely have adverse economic 
impacts on pelagic longline fishermen who target dolphin fish, because 
these fishermen on average use 1,066 hooks per set. If NMFS implemented 
this alternative, fishermen targeting dolphin fish with pelagic 
longline gear would have to reduce their number of hooks by 
approximately 30 percent per set, which may result in a similar percent 
reduction in set revenue or could result in increased operating costs 
if fishermen decide to offset the limited number of hooks with more 
fishing sets. While this alternative would have minor beneficial 
ecological impacts, overall, Alternative B2 would be expected to have 
short- and long-term minor adverse economic impacts on the pelagic 
longline fishery.
Alternative B3
    Under Alternative B3, a preferred alternative, HMS commercial 
fishermen must release all sharks that are not being boarded or 
retained by using a dehooker, or by cutting the gangion no more than 
three feet from the hook. This alternative would have neutral to 
adverse economic impacts on commercial shark fishermen using pelagic 
longline gear. Currently, fishermen are required to use a dehooking 
device if a protected species is caught. This alternative would require 
this procedure to be used on all sharks that would not be retained, or 
fishermen would have to cut the gangion to release the shark. 
Currently, it is common practice in the pelagic longline fishery to 
release sharks that are not going to be retained (especially larger 
sharks) by cutting the gangion, but they usually do not cut the gangion 
so only 3 feet remain, so there might be a slight learning curve. Using 
a dehooker to release sharks in the pelagic longline fishery is a less 
common practice; therefore, there may be more of a learning curve that 
would make using this technique more time consuming and would make 
fishing operations temporarily less efficient while fishermen become 
used to this technique. NMFS expects that these inefficiencies would be 
minimal and that fishermen would become adept in using a dehooker to 
release sharks over time given they are all practiced at using a 
dehooker to release protected species. Thus, Alternative B3 would be 
expected to have short- and long-term neutral economic impacts on the 
pelagic longline fishery.
Alternative B4
    Under Alternative B4, NMFS considered various dusky shark hotspot 
closures for vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear. The hotspot 
closures considered are the same areas that were analyzed in Draft 
Amendment 5 and the A5b Predraft. These hotspot closure alternatives 
are located where increased levels of pelagic longline interactions 
with dusky sharks had been identified based on HMS Logbook data. During 
the months that hotspot closures are effective, Atlantic shark 
commercial permit holders (directed or incidental) would not be able to 
fish with pelagic longline gear in these areas. While these closures 
would result in minor ecological benefits, NMFS does not prefer them at 
this time because the preferred alternatives would address overfishing 
and rebuilding without the adverse social and economic impacts 
associated with these closures.
Alternative B4a--Charleston Bump Hotspot May
    This alternative would define a rectangular area in a portion of 
the existing Charleston Bump time/area closure area, and prohibit the 
use of pelagic longline gear by all vessels during the month of May in 
that area. This alternative is expected to have moderate short and 
long-term direct adverse economic impacts on 46 vessels that have 
historically fished in this Charleston Bump area during the month of 
May. This closure would result in the loss of approximately $15,250 in 
gross revenues per year per vessel assuming no redistribution of effort 
outside of the closed area.
    However, it is likely that some of the vessels that would be 
impacted by this hotspot closure would redistribute their effort to 
other fishing areas. Based on natural breaks in the percentage of sets 
vessels made inside and outside of this alternative's hotspot closure 
area, NMFS estimated that if a vessel historically made less than 40 
percent of its sets in the hotspot closure area, it would likely 
redistribute all of its effort. If a vessel made more than 40 percent 
but less than 75 percent of its sets in the hotspot closure area, it 
would likely redistribute 50 percent of its effort impacted by the 
hotspot closure area to other areas. Finally, if a vessel made more 
than 75 percent of its sets solely within the hotspot closure area, 
NMFS assumed the vessel would not likely shift its effort to other 
areas. Based on these individually calculated redistribution rates, the 
percentage of fishing in other areas during the gear restriction time 
period, the percentage of fishing in other areas during the hotspot 
closure time period, and the catch per unit effort for each vessel in 
each statistical area, NMFS estimated the potential landings associated 
with redistributed effort associated with fishing sets displaced by the 
hotspot closure area. The net loss in fishing revenues as a result of 
the Charleston Bump Hotspot May closure after considering likely 
redistribution of effort is estimated to be $8,300 per vessel per year. 
Alternative B4a would result in moderate short- and long-term adverse 
economic impacts as a result of restricting pelagic longline vessels 
from fishing in the Charleston Bump Hotspot May area, thus causing 
decreased revenues and increased costs associated with fishing in 
potentially more distant waters if vessel operators redistribute their 
effort.
Alternative B4b--Hatteras Shelf Hotspot May
    This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in 
the vicinity of the ``Hatteras Shelf'' area of the Cape Hatteras 
Special Research Area during the month of May where elevated levels of 
dusky shark interactions have been reported. This alternative is 
expected to have moderate

[[Page 71683]]

short and long-term direct adverse economic impacts on 42 vessels that 
have historically fished in this Hatteras Shelf Hotspot area during the 
month of May. The average annual revenue per vessel from 2008 through 
2014 from all fishing sets made in this hotspot closure area has been 
approximately $9,980 during the month of May, assuming that fishing 
effort does not move to other areas. However, it is likely that some of 
the vessels that would be impacted by this hotspot closure would 
redistribute their effort to other fishing areas. The net impact of the 
Hatteras Shelf Hotspot May closure on fishing revenues after 
considering likely redistribution of effort is estimated to be $5,990 
per vessel per year. Alternative B4b would result in moderate adverse 
economic impacts as a result of restricting pelagic longline vessels 
from fishing in the Hatteras Shelf Hotspot May area, thus causing 
decreased revenues and increased costs associated with fishing in 
potentially more distant waters if vessel operators redistribute their 
effort.
Alternative B4c--Hatteras Shelf Hotspot June
    This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in 
the vicinity of the ``Hatteras Shelf'' area of the Cape Hatteras 
Special Research Area during the month of June where elevated levels of 
dusky shark interactions have been reported. This alternative is 
expected to have moderate short and long-term direct adverse economic 
impacts on 37 vessels that have historically fished in this Hatteras 
Shelf Hotspot area during the month of June. The average annual revenue 
from 2008 through 2014 from all fishing sets made in this hotspot 
closure area has been approximately $7,640 per vessel during the month 
of June, assuming that fishing effort does not move to other areas. 
However, it is likely that some of the vessels that would be impacted 
by this hotspot closure would redistribute their effort to other 
fishing areas. The net impact of the Hatteras Shelf Hotspot June 
closure on fishing revenues after considering likely redistribution of 
effort is estimated to be $4,010 per vessel per year. Alternative B4c 
would result in moderate adverse economic impacts as a result of 
restricting pelagic longline vessels from fishing in the Hatteras Shelf 
Hotspot June area, thus causing decreased revenues and increased costs 
associated with fishing in potentially more distant waters if vessel 
operators redistribute their effort.
Alternative B4d--Hatteras Shelf Hotspot November
    This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in 
the vicinity of the ``Hatteras Shelf'' area of the Cape Hatteras 
Special Research Area during the month of November where elevated 
levels of dusky shark interactions have been reported. This alternative 
is expected to have minor short and long-term direct adverse economic 
impacts on 23 vessels that have historically fished in this Hatteras 
Shelf Hotspot area during the month of November. The average annual 
revenue from 2008 through 2014 from all fishing sets made in this 
hotspot closure area has been approximately $5,230 per vessel during 
the month of November, assuming that fishing effort does not move to 
other areas. However, it is likely that some of the vessels that would 
be impacted by this hotspot closure would redistribute their effort to 
other fishing areas. The net impact of the Hatteras Shelf Hotspot 
November closure on fishing revenues after considering likely 
redistribution of effort is estimated to be $3,540 per vessel per year. 
Alternative B4d would result in minor adverse economic impacts as a 
result of restricting pelagic longline vessels from fishing in the 
Hatteras Shelf Hotspot November area, thus causing decreased revenues 
and increased costs associated with fishing in potentially more distant 
waters if vessel operators redistribute their effort.
Alternative B4e--Canyons Hotspot October
    This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear by 
all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted to fish for HMS in the three 
distinct closures in the vicinity of the Mid-Atlantic Canyons during 
the month of October where elevated levels of dusky shark interactions 
have been reported. This alternative is expected to have moderate short 
and long-term direct adverse economic impacts on 64 vessels that have 
historically fished in this Canyons Hotspot October area. The average 
annual revenue from 2008 through 2014 from all fishing sets made in 
this hotspot closure area has been approximately $9,950 per vessel 
during the month of October, assuming that fishing effort does not move 
to other areas. However, it is likely that some of the vessels that 
would be impacted by this hotspot closure would redistribute their 
effort to other fishing areas. The net impact of the Canyons Hotspot 
October closure on fishing revenues after considering likely 
redistribution of effort is estimated to be $3,720 per vessel per year. 
Alternative B4e would result in moderate adverse economic impacts as a 
result of restricting pelagic longline vessels from fishing in the 
Canyons Hotspot October area, thus causing decreased revenues and 
increased costs associated with fishing in potentially more distant 
waters if vessel operators redistribute their effort.
Alternative B4f--Southern Georges Banks Hotspot July
    This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear by 
all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted to fish for HMS in July in an area 
adjacent to the existing Northeastern U.S. closure which is currently 
effective for the month of June, where elevated levels of dusky shark 
interactions have been reported. This alternative is expected to have 
moderate short- and long-term direct adverse economic impacts on 35 
vessels that have historically fished in this Southern Georges Banks 
Hotspot area during the month of July. The average annual revenue from 
2008 through 2014 from all fishing sets made in this hotspot closure 
area has been approximately $14,230 per vessel during the month of 
July, assuming that fishing effort does not move to other areas. 
However, it is likely that some of the vessels that would be impacted 
by this hotspot closure would redistribute their effort to other 
fishing areas. The net impact of the Southern Georges Banks Hotspot 
July closure on fishing revenues after considering likely 
redistribution of effort is estimated to be $8,290 per vessel per year. 
Alternative B4f would result in moderate adverse economic impacts as a 
result of restricting longline vessels from fishing in the Southern 
Georges Banks Hotspot July area, thus causing decreased revenues and 
increased costs associated with fishing in potentially more distant 
waters if vessel operators redistribute their effort.
Alternative B4g--Southern Georges Banks Hotspot August
    This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear by 
all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted to fish for HMS in August in an area 
adjacent to the existing Northeastern U.S. closure, which is currently 
effective for the month of June, where elevated levels of dusky shark 
interactions have been reported. This alternative is expected to have 
moderate short and long-term direct adverse economic impacts on 35 
vessels that have historically fished in this Southern Georges Banks 
Hotspot area during the month of August. The average annual revenue 
from 2008 through 2014 from all fishing sets made

[[Page 71684]]

in this hotspot closure area has been approximately $12,260 per vessel 
during the month of August, assuming that fishing effort does not move 
to other areas. However, it is likely that some of the vessels that 
would be impacted by this hotspot closure would redistribute their 
effort to other fishing areas. The net impact of the Southern Georges 
Banks Hotspot August closure on fishing revenues after considering 
likely redistribution of effort is estimated to be $5,990 per vessel 
per year. Alternative B4g would result in moderate adverse economic 
impacts as a result of restricting pelagic longline vessels from 
fishing in the Southern Georges Banks Hotspot August area, thus causing 
decreased revenues and increased costs associated with fishing in 
potentially more distant waters if vessel operators redistribute their 
effort.
Alternative B4h--Charleston Bump Hotspot November
    This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear by 
all U.S. flagged-vessels permitted to fish for HMS in a portion of the 
existing Charleston Bump time/area closure during the month of November 
where elevated levels of dusky shark interactions have been reported. 
This alternative is expected to have minor short and long-term direct 
adverse economic impacts on 32 vessels that have historically fished in 
this Charleston Bump Hotspot area during the month of November. The 
average annual revenue from 2008 through 2014 from all fishing sets 
made in this hotspot closure area has been approximately $7,030 per 
vessel during the month of November, assuming that fishing effort does 
not move to other areas. However, it is likely that some of the vessels 
that would be impacted by this hotspot closure would redistribute their 
effort to other fishing areas. The net impact of the Charleston Bump 
Hotspot November closure on fishing revenues after considering likely 
redistribution of effort is estimated to be $2,720 per vessel per year. 
Alternative B4h would result in minor adverse social and economic 
impacts as a result of restricting pelagic longline vessels from 
fishing in the Charleston Bump Hotspot November area, thus causing 
decreased revenues and increased costs associated with fishing in 
potentially more distant waters if vessel operators redistribute their 
effort.
Alternative B4i--Conditional Access to Hotspot Closures
    This alternative would allow PLL vessels that have demonstrated an 
ability to avoid dusky sharks and comply with dusky shark regulations 
to fish within any dusky hotspot closure adopted. This approach would 
address the fact that, according to HMS logbook data, relatively few 
vessels have consistently accounted for the majority of the dusky shark 
interactions and also address requests from PLL participants to 
increase individual accountability within the fishery. Depending on the 
metrics selected and fishery participant behavior, this alternative 
could have adverse socioeconomic effects on certain vessels that are 
both poor avoiders of dusky sharks and are non-compliant with the 
regulations. This alternative would require an annual determination of 
which vessels would qualify for conditional access based on dusky shark 
interactions. NMFS would analyzed the socioeconomic impact by using 
similar fishing effort redistribution proposed in Draft Amendment 7 and 
described in Alternative B5. This alternative would have neutral to 
beneficial effects for vessels that are still authorized to fish in a 
hotspot closure(s), and would reduce adverse socioeconomic effects of a 
closure(s). As explained above, NMFS is not preferring any hotspot 
closure alternative and thus is not preferring this alternative, which 
would work in conjunction with a closure.
Alternative B4j--Dusky Shark Bycatch Caps
    This alternative would implement bycatch caps on dusky shark 
interactions over a three-year period in hotspot areas. Under this 
alternative, NMFS would allow pelagic longline vessels limited access 
to high dusky shark interaction areas with an observer onboard while 
limiting the number of dusky shark interactions that could occur in 
these areas. Once the dusky shark bycatch cap for an area is reached, 
that area would close until the end of the three-year bycatch cap 
period. This alternative could lead to adverse economic impacts by 
reducing annual revenue from fishing in the various hot spot areas 
depending on the number of hotspots where bycatch cap limits are 
reached, the timing of those potential closures during the year, and 
the amount of effort redistribution that occurs after the closures. In 
addition to direct impacts to vessels owners, operators, and crew 
members, this alternative would have moderate, adverse indirect impacts 
in the short and long-term on fish dealers, processors, bait/gear 
suppliers, and other shore-based businesses impacted by reduced fishing 
opportunities for pelagic longline vessel owners that would have fished 
in the hotspot area. As explained above, NMFS is not preferring any 
hotspot closure alternative and thus is not preferring this 
alternative, which would work in conjunction with a closure.
Alternative B5
    Alternative B5, a preferred alternative, would provide additional 
training to pelagic longline, bottom longline, and shark gillnet vessel 
owners and operators as a new part of all currently required Safe 
Handling and Release Workshops. The training course would provide 
information regarding shark identification and regulations, as well as 
best practices to avoid interacting with dusky sharks and how to 
minimize mortality of dusky sharks caught as bycatch. This training 
course requirement provides targeted outreach to those who continue to 
interact with dusky sharks, which should decrease interactions with 
dusky sharks. This alternative would have minor adverse economic 
impacts since the fishermen would be required to attend a workshop, 
incur some travel costs, and would not be fishing while taking 
attending the workshop. Given the minor economic impacts and this 
alternative's potential to decrease dusky interactions and mortality, 
NMFS prefers this alternative.
Alternative B6
    The economic impacts associated with Alternative B6, a preferred 
alternative, which would increase dusky shark outreach and awareness 
through development of additional commercial fishery outreach materials 
and establish a communication and fishing set relocation protocol for 
HMS commercial fishermen following interactions with dusky sharks and 
increase outreach, are anticipated to be neutral. These requirements 
would not cause a substantial change to current fishing operations, but 
have the potential to help fishermen become more adept in avoiding 
dusky sharks. If fishermen become better at avoiding dusky sharks, 
there is the possibility that target catch could increase. On the other 
hand, the requirement to move the subsequent fishing set one nautical 
mile from where a previous dusky shark interaction occurred could move 
fishermen away from areas where they would prefer to fish and it could 
increase fuel usage and fuel costs. Given the low economic impacts of 
this alternative and its potential to decrease dusky shark 
interactions, NMFS prefers this alternative.
Alternative B7
    NMFS would seek, through collaboration with the affected states

[[Page 71685]]

and the ASMFC, to extend the end date of the existing state shark 
closure from July 15 to July 31. Currently, the states of Virginia, 
Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey have a state-water commercial shark 
closure from May 15 to July 15. Extending the closure period in state 
waters would result in minor beneficial ecological impacts. In 2014, 
621 lb dw of aggregated LCS and 669 lb dw of hammerhead sharks were 
landed by commercial fishermen in Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey 
from July 15 to July 31. Based on 2014 ex-vessel prices, the annual 
gross revenues loss for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat to the 
regional fleet in revenues due to an extended closure date would be 
$847, while the shark fins would be $207. Thus the total loss annual 
gross revenue for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks would be $1,054. 
Extending this closure by 16 days could cause a reduction of commercial 
fishing opportunity, likely resulting in minor adverse economic impacts 
due to reduced opportunities to harvest aggregated LCS and hammerhead 
sharks. In the long-term, this reduction would be neutral since 
fishermen would be able to adapt to the new opening date.
Alternative B8
    Under Alternative B8, NMFS would remove pelagic longline gear as an 
authorized gear for Atlantic HMS. All commercial fishing with pelagic 
longline gear for HMS in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 
would be prohibited, which would have beneficial ecological impacts. 
However, this would greatly reduce fishing opportunities for pelagic 
longline fishing vessel owners. Prohibiting the use of pelagic longline 
fishing gear would result in direct and indirect, major adverse 
economic impacts in the short and long-term for pelagic longline vessel 
owners, operators, and crew.
    Between 2008 and 2014, 168 different vessels reported using pelagic 
longline fishing gear in Atlantic HMS Logbooks. Average annual revenues 
were estimated to be approximately $34,322,983 per year based on HMS 
logbook records, bluefin tuna dealer reports, and the eDealer database. 
In 2014, there were 110 active pelagic longline vessels which produced 
approximately $33,293,118 in revenues. The 2014 landings value is in 
line with the 2008 to 2014 average. Therefore, NMFS expects future 
revenues forgone revenue on a per vessel basis to be approximately 
$309,000 per year based on 110 vessels generating an estimated $34 
million in revenues per year. This displacement of fishery revenues 
would likely cause business closures for a majority of these pelagic 
longline vessel owners. Given the magnitude of the economic impact of 
this alternative, it is not a preferred alternative.
Alternative B9
    Under Alternative B9, a preferred alternative, NMFS would require 
the use of circle hooks by all HMS directed shark permit holders in the 
bottom longline fishery. This requirement would likely reduce the 
mortality associated with dusky shark bycatch in the bottom longline 
fishery. There is negligible cost associated with switch from J-hooks 
to circle hooks. However, it is possible that circle hooks may reduce 
catch per unit effort (CPUE) resulting in lower catch of target 
species. To the extent that CPUE is reduced, some commercial fishermen 
using BLL gear may experience reduced landings and associated revenue 
with the use of circle hooks. This alternative would require the 224 
vessels that hold a shark directed limited access permit as of 2015 to 
use circle hooks. However, 104 of the 224 vessels have an Atlantic 
tunas longline permit, which requires fishermen to use circle hooks 
with pelagic longline gear. Thus, those vessels would already possess 
and use circle hooks. The remaining 120 permit holders would be 
required to use circle hooks when using bottom longline gear. Given the 
low switching costs from J-hooks to circle hooks and the potential to 
reduce dusky shark mortality, NMFS prefers this alternative.
Alternative B10
    Under this alternative, NMFS would annually allocate individual 
dusky shark bycatch quota (IDQ) to each individual shark directed or 
incidental limited access permit holder in the HMS pelagic and bottom 
longline fisheries for assignment to permitted vessels. These 
allocations would be transferable between permit holders. When each 
vessel's IDQ is reached, the vessel would no longer be authorized to 
fish for HMS for the remainder of the year. The concept of this 
alternative is similar to the Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota (IBQ) 
Program implemented in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (79 
FR 71510; December 2, 2014), which established individual quotas for 
bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery and authorized 
retention and sale of such bycatch. Under this alternative, however, 
NMFS would continue to prohibit retention and sale of dusky sharks. The 
goal of individual quotas generally is to provide strong individual 
incentives to reduce interactions while providing flexibility for 
vessels to continue to operate in the fishery; however, several unique 
issues associated with dusky sharks would make these goals difficult to 
achieve.
    In order to achieve the mortality reductions based upon the 2016 
SEDAR 21 dusky shark assessment update, the number of dusky shark 
interactions may need to be substantially reduced. NMFS expects the 
allocations to each vessel may be extremely low and highly inaccurate/
uncertain. As stated above, there is significant uncertainty in 
estimating dusky shark catches and calculating the appropriate level of 
catch for this alternative to be feasible. It is not clear that an IDQ 
system without an appropriate scientific basis would actually reduce 
interactions with dusky sharks. To the extent that any reduction 
actually occurred, some vessels would be constrained by the amount of 
individual quota they are allocated and this could reduce their annual 
revenue. If a pelagic longline vessel interacts with dusky sharks early 
in the year and uses their full IDQ allocation, they may be unable to 
continue fishing with pelagic longline or bottom longline gear for the 
rest of the year if they are unable to lease quota from other IDQ 
holders. This would result in reduced revenues and potential cash flow 
issues for these small businesses.
    If vessel owners are only allocated a very low amount of IDQs, it 
is very unlikely that an active trading market for IDQs will emerge. 
The initial allocations could be insufficient for many vessels to 
maintain their current levels of fishing activity and they may not be 
able to find IDQs to lease or have insufficient capital to lease a 
sufficient amount of IDQs. Some vessel owners may view the risk of 
exceeding their IDQ allocations and the associated costs of acquiring 
additional quota to outweigh the potential profit from fishing, so they 
may opt to not continue participating in the fishery. The annual 
transaction costs associated with matching lessor and lessees, the 
costs associated with drafting agreements, and the uncertainty vessel 
owners would face regarding quota availability would reduce some of the 
economic benefits associated with leasing quota and fishing. There 
would also be increased costs associated with bottom longline vessels 
obtaining and installing EM and VMS units. Some bottom longline vessel 
owners might have to consider obtaining new vessels if their current 
vessels cannot be equipped with EM and VMS. There would be increased 
costs associated with VMS reporting of dusky interactions. Some 
fishermen would also need to ship EM hard drives

[[Page 71686]]

after each trip and they may need to consider acquiring extra hard 
drives to avoid not having one available when they want to go on a 
subsequent trip.
    NMFS is not preferring this alternative, as it does not further the 
objectives of this action. Given the challenges in properly identifying 
dusky sharks, every shark would need to be brought on board the vessel 
and ensure an accurate picture of identifying features was taken by the 
EM cameras. Such handling would likely increase dusky shark and other 
shark species mortality, and this action is supposed to reduce 
mortality. In addition, this alternative is also unlikely to minimize 
the economic impact of this rule as compared to the preferred 
alternatives given the potential for reduced fishing revenues, 
monitoring equipment costs, and transaction costs.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

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

    Dated: October 12, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to 
be amended as follows:

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  635.2:
0
a. Remove the definition of ``Protected species safe handling, release, 
and identification workshop certificate''; and
0
b. Add new definitions for ``Safe handling, release, and identification 
workshop certificate'' and ``Shark endorsement'' in alphabetical order 
to read as follows:


Sec.  635.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Safe handling, release, and identification workshop certificate 
means the document issued by NMFS, or its designee, indicating that the 
person named on the certificate has successfully completed the Atlantic 
HMS safe handling, release, and identification workshop.
* * * * *
    Shark endorsement means an authorization added to an HMS Angling, 
HMS Charter/Headboat, Atlantic Tunas General, or Swordfish General 
Commercial permit that allows for the retention of authorized Atlantic 
sharks consistent with all other applicable regulations in this part.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  635.4, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), and (c)(2), and 
add paragraphs (c)(5) and (j)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits and fees.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The owner of a charter boat or headboat used to fish for, 
retain, possess, or land any Atlantic HMS must obtain an HMS Charter/
Headboat permit. In order to fish for, retain, possess, or land 
Atlantic sharks, the owner must have a valid shark endorsement issued 
by NMFS, and persons on board must use circle hooks as specified at 
Sec.  635.21(f) and (k). A vessel issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit 
for a fishing year shall not be issued an HMS Angling permit, a 
Swordfish General Commercial permit, or an Atlantic Tunas permit in any 
category for that same fishing year, regardless of a change in the 
vessel's ownership.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The owner of any vessel used to fish recreationally for 
Atlantic HMS or on which Atlantic HMS are retained or possessed 
recreationally, must obtain an HMS Angling permit, except as provided 
in Sec.  635.4(c)(2). In order to fish for, retain, possess, or land 
Atlantic sharks, the owner must have a valid shark endorsement issued 
by NMFS, and persons on board must use circle hooks as specified at 
Sec.  635.21(f) and (k). Atlantic HMS caught, retained, possessed, or 
landed by persons on board vessels with an HMS Angling permit may not 
be sold or transferred to any person for a commercial purpose. A vessel 
issued an HMS Angling permit for a fishing year shall not be issued an 
HMS Charter/Headboat permit, a Swordfish General Commercial permit, or 
an Atlantic Tunas permit in any category for that same fishing year, 
regardless of a change in the vessel's ownership.
    (2) A vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas General category permit 
issued under paragraph (d) of this section or with a valid Swordfish 
General Commercial permit issued under paragraph (f) of this section 
may fish in a recreational HMS fishing tournament if the vessel has 
registered for, paid an entry fee to, and is fishing under the rules of 
a tournament that has registered with NMFS' HMS Management Division as 
required under Sec.  635.5(d). When a vessel issued a valid Atlantic 
Tunas General category permit or a valid Swordfish General Commercial 
permit is fishing in such a tournament, such vessel must comply with 
HMS Angling category regulations, except as provided in paragraphs 
(c)(3) and (c)(4) and in addition to paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) In order to fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks, the 
owner of a vessel fishing in a registered recreational HMS fishing 
tournament and issued either an Atlantic Tunas General category or 
Swordfish General Commercial permit must have a shark endorsement, and 
persons on board must use circle hooks as specified at Sec.  635.21(f) 
and (k).
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (4) In order to obtain a shark endorsement to fish for, retain, or 
land sharks, a vessel owner with a vessel fishing in a registered 
recreational HMS fishing tournament and issued or required to be issued 
either an Atlantic Tunas General category or Swordfish General 
Commercial permit or a vessel owner of a vessel issued or required to 
be issued an HMS Angling or HMS Charter/Headboat permit must take a 
shark endorsement online quiz. After completion of the quiz, NMFS will 
issue the vessel owner a new or revised permit with the shark 
endorsement for the vessel. The vessel owner can take the quiz at any 
time during the fishing year, but his or her vessel may not leave the 
dock on a trip during which sharks will be fished for, retained, or 
landed unless a new or revised permit with a shark endorsement has been 
issued by NMFS for the vessel. The addition of a shark endorsement to 
the permit does not constitute a permit category change and does not 
change the timing considerations for permit category changes specified 
in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  635.8, revise paragraphs (a), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), 
(c)(6), and (c)(7) as follows:


Sec.  635.8  Workshops.

    (a) Safe handling release, disentanglement, and identification 
workshops. (1) Both the owner and operator of a vessel that fishes with 
longline or gillnet gear must be certified by NMFS, or its designee, as 
having completed a safe handling, release, and identification workshop 
before a shark or swordfish limited access vessel permit, pursuant to 
Sec.  635.4(e) and (f), is renewed. For the purposes of this section, 
it is a rebuttable presumption

[[Page 71687]]

that a vessel fishes with longline or gillnet gear if: Longline or 
gillnet gear is onboard the vessel; logbook reports indicate that 
longline or gillnet gear was used on at least one trip in the preceding 
year; or, in the case of a permit transfer to new owners that occurred 
less than a year ago, logbook reports indicate that longline or gillnet 
gear was used on at least one trip since the permit transfer.
    (2) NMFS, or its designee, will issue a safe handling, release, and 
identification workshop certificate to any person who completes a safe 
handling, release, and identification workshop. If an owner owns 
multiple vessels, NMFS will issue a certificate for each vessel that 
the owner owns upon successful completion of one workshop. An owner who 
is also an operator will be issued multiple certificates, one as the 
owner of the vessel and one as the operator.
    (3) The owner of a vessel that fishes with longline or gillnet 
gear, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is required to 
possess on board the vessel a valid safe handling, release, and 
identification workshop certificate issued to that vessel owner. A copy 
of a valid safe handling, release, and identification workshop 
certificate issued to the vessel owner for a vessel that fishes with 
longline or gillnet gear must be included in the application package to 
renew or obtain a shark or swordfish limited access permit.
    (4) An operator that fishes with longline or gillnet gear as 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must possess on board the 
vessel a valid safe handling, release, and identification workshop 
certificate issued to that operator, in addition to a certificate 
issued to the vessel owner.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) If a vessel fishes with longline or gillnet gear as described 
in paragraph (a) of this section, the vessel owner may not renew a 
shark or swordfish limited access permit, issued pursuant to Sec.  
635.4(e) or (f), without submitting a valid safe handling, release, and 
identification workshop certificate with the permit renewal 
application.
    (3) A vessel that fishes with longline or gillnet gear as described 
in paragraph (a) of this section and that has been, or should be, 
issued a valid limited access permit pursuant to Sec.  635.4(e) or (f), 
may not fish unless a valid safe handling, release, and identification 
workshop certificate has been issued to both the owner and operator of 
that vessel.
* * * * *
    (5) A vessel owner, operator, shark dealer, proxy for a shark 
dealer, or participant who is issued either a safe handling, release, 
and identification workshop certificate or an Atlantic shark 
identification workshop certificate may not transfer that certificate 
to another person.
    (6) Vessel owners issued a valid safe handling, release, and 
identification workshop certificate may request, in the application for 
permit transfer per Sec.  635.4(l)(2), additional safe handling, 
release, and identification workshop certificates for additional 
vessels that they own. Shark dealers may request from NMFS additional 
Atlantic shark identification workshop certificates for additional 
places of business authorized to receive sharks that they own as long 
as they, and not a proxy, were issued the certificate. All certificates 
must be renewed prior to the date of expiration on the certificate.
    (7) To receive the safe handling, release, and identification 
workshop certificate or Atlantic shark identification workshop 
certificate, persons required to attend the workshop must first show a 
copy of their HMS permit, as well as proof of identification to NMFS or 
NMFS' designee at the workshop. If a permit holder is a corporation, 
partnership, association, or any other entity, the individual attending 
on behalf of the permit holder must show proof that he or she is the 
permit holder's agent and provide a copy of the HMS permit to NMFS or 
NMFS' designee at the workshop. For proxies attending on behalf of a 
shark dealer, the proxy must have documentation from the shark dealer 
acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the 
Atlantic shark dealer and must show a copy of the Atlantic shark dealer 
permit to NMFS or NMFS' designee at the workshop.
0
5. In Sec.  635.19, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.19  Authorized gears.

* * * * *
    (d) Sharks. (1) No person may possess a shark without a permit 
issued under Sec.  635.4.
    (2) No person issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit 
under Sec.  635.4 may possess a shark taken by any gear other than rod 
and reel, handline, bandit gear, longline, or gillnet, except that 
smoothhound sharks may be retained incidentally while fishing with 
trawl gear subject to the restrictions specified in Sec.  635.24(a)(7).
    (3) No person issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit 
may possess a shark taken from the U.S. Caribbean, as defined at Sec.  
622.2 of this chapter, by any gear other than with rod and reel, 
handline or bandit gear.
    (4) Persons on a vessel issued a permit with a shark endorsement 
under Sec.  635.4 may possess a shark only if the shark was taken by 
rod and reel or handline, except that persons on a vessel issued both 
an HMS Charter/Headboat permit (with or without a shark endorsement) 
and a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit may possess sharks taken 
by rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, longline, or gillnet if the 
vessel is engaged in a non for-hire fishing trip and the commercial 
shark fishery is open pursuant to Sec.  635.28(b).
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  635.21:
0
a. Add paragraph (c)(6);
0
b. Revise the introductory text for paragraph (d)(2);
0
c. Add paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (d)(4);
0
d. Revise paragraph (f); and
0
e. Add paragraphs (g)(5) and (k).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) The owner or operator of a vessel permitted or required to be 
permitted under this part and that has pelagic longline gear on board 
must undertake the following shark bycatch mitigation measures:
    (i) Handling and release requirements. Any hooked or entangled 
sharks that are not being retained must be released using dehookers or 
line clippers or cutters. If using a line clipper or cutter, the 
gangion must be cut so that less than three feet (91.4 cm) of line 
remains attached to the hook.
    (ii) Fleet communication and relocation protocol. The owner or 
operator of any vessel that catches a dusky shark must broadcast the 
location of the dusky shark interaction over the radio to other fishing 
vessels in the surrounding area. Subsequent fishing sets by that vessel 
on that trip must be at least 1 nmi from the reported location of the 
dusky shark catch.
    (d) * * *
    (2) The operator of a vessel required to be permitted under this 
part and that has bottom longline gear on board must undertake the 
following bycatch mitigation measures:
* * * * *
    (iii) Fleet communication and relocation protocol. The owner or 
operator of any vessel that catches a dusky shark must broadcast the 
location

[[Page 71688]]

of the dusky shark interaction over the radio to other fishing vessels 
in the surrounding area. Subsequent fishing sets by that vessel on that 
trip must be at least 1 nmi from the reported location of the dusky 
shark catch.
* * * * *
    (4) Vessels that have bottom longline gear on board and that have 
been issued, or are required to have been issued, a directed shark 
limited access permit under Sec.  635.4(e) must have only circle hooks 
as defined at Sec.  635.2 on board.
* * * * *
    (f) Rod and reel. (1) Persons who have been issued or are required 
to be issued a permit under this part and who are participating in a 
``tournament,'' as defined in Sec.  635.2, that bestows points, prizes, 
or awards for Atlantic billfish must deploy only non-offset circle 
hooks when using natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure 
combinations, and may not deploy a J-hook or an offset circle hook in 
combination with natural bait or a natural bait/artificial lure 
combination.
    (2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required 
to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under this part and who 
is participating in an HMS registered tournament that bestows points, 
prizes, or awards for Atlantic sharks must deploy only circle hooks 
when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing sharks. For the 
purposes of this requirement, an owner or operator is fishing for 
sharks if they are using natural bait and wire or heavy (200 pound test 
or greater) monofilament or fluorocarbon leaders.
    (3) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required 
to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or an HMS 
Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement must deploy only 
circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing 
sharks. Any shark caught on non-circle hooks must be released. For the 
purposes of this requirement, an owner or operator is fishing for 
sharks if they are using natural bait and wire or heavy (200 pound test 
or greater) monofilament or fluorocarbon leaders.
    (g) * * *
    (5) Fleet communication and relocation protocol. The owner or 
operator of any vessel issued or required to be issued a Federal 
Atlantic commercial shark limited access permit that catches a dusky 
shark must broadcast the location of the dusky shark interaction over 
the radio to other fishing vessels in the surrounding area. Subsequent 
fishing sets by that vessel that trip must be at least 1 nmi from the 
reported location of the dusky shark catch.
* * * * *
    (k) Handline. (1) A person on board a vessel that has been issued 
or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under 
this part and who is participating in an HMS registered tournament that 
bestows points, prizes, or awards for Atlantic sharks must deploy only 
circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing 
sharks. Any shark caught on non-circle hooks must be released. For the 
purposes of this sections, an owner or operator is fishing for sharks 
if they are using natural bait and wire or heavy (200 pound test or 
greater) monofilament or fluorocarbon leaders.
    (2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required 
to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or a person 
on board a vessel with an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark 
endorsement must deploy only circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, 
possessing, or landing sharks. Any shark caught on non-circle hooks 
must be released. For the purposes of this requirement, an owner or 
operator is fishing for sharks if they are using natural bait and wire 
or heavy (200 pound test or greater) monofilament or fluorocarbon 
leaders.
0
7. In Sec.  635.22, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.22  Recreational retention limits.

    (c) * * *
    (1) The recreational retention limit for sharks applies to any 
person who fishes in any manner, except to persons aboard a vessel that 
has been issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark vessel permit under 
Sec.  635.4. The retention limit can change depending on the species 
being caught and the size limit under which they are being caught as 
specified under Sec.  635.20(e). If a commercial Atlantic shark quota 
is closed under Sec.  635.28, the recreational retention limit for 
sharks and no sale provision in paragraph (a) of this section may be 
applied to persons aboard a vessel issued a Federal Atlantic commercial 
shark vessel permit under Sec.  635.4, only if that vessel has also 
been issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement 
under Sec.  635.4 and is engaged in a for-hire fishing trip. A person 
on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a 
permit with a shark endorsement under Sec.  635.4 must use circle hooks 
as specified in Sec.  635.21(f) and (k) in order to retain sharks per 
the retention limits specified in this section.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  635.71, revise paragraphs (a)(50) through (52), and add 
paragraphs (d)(21) through (d)(26) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (50) Fish without being certified for completion of a NMFS safe 
handling, release, and identification workshop, as required in Sec.  
635.8.
    (51) Fish without having a valid safe handling, release, and 
identification workshop certificate issued to the vessel owner and 
operator on board the vessel as required in Sec.  635.8.
    (52) Falsify a NMFS safe handling, release, and identification 
workshop certificate or a NMFS Atlantic shark identification workshop 
certificate as specified at Sec.  635.8.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (21) Fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks without a shark 
endorsement when issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit, HMS Charter/
Headboat permit, an Atlantic Tunas General Category permit, or a 
Swordfish General Commercial permit, as specified in Sec.  635.4(c).
    (22) Fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying 
circle hooks when fishing at a registered HMS fishing tournament that 
has awards or prizes for sharks, as specified in Sec.  635.21(f) and 
(k) and Sec.  635.22(c)(1).
    (23) Fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying 
circle hooks when issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit or HMS Charter/
Headboat permit with a shark endorsement, as specified in in Sec.  
635.21(f) and (k) and Sec.  635.22(c)(1).
    (24) Release sharks with more than 3 feet (91.4 cm) of trailing 
gear, as specified in Sec.  635.21(c)(6).
    (25) Fail to follow the fleet communication and relocation protocol 
for dusky sharks as specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(6), (d)(2), and 
(g)(5).
    (26) Deploy bottom longline gear without circle hooks, or have on 
board both bottom longline gear and non-circle hooks, as specified at 
Sec.  635.21(d)(4).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-25051 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P