[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16648-16656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8754]
[[Page 16647]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 678
Atlantic Shark Fisheries: Quotas, Bag Limits, Prohibitions, and
Requirements and Large Coastal Shark Species; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 16648]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 678
[Docket No. 961211348-7065-03; I.D. 092396B]
RIN 0648-AH77
Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Quotas, Bag Limits, Prohibitions, and
Requirements
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement certain measures
authorized by the Fishery Management Plan for Sharks of the Atlantic
Ocean (FMP). These measures: Reduce commercial quotas for large coastal
sharks, reduce recreational bag limits; establish a commercial quota
for small coastal sharks; prohibit directed commercial fishing for,
landing of, or sale of five species of sharks; establish a recreational
catch-and-release only fishery for white sharks; prohibit filleting of
sharks at sea; and refers to the requirement for species-specific
identification by all owners or operators, dealers, and tournament
operators of all sharks landed under the framework provisions of the
FMP. This rule is intended to reduce effective fishing mortality,
stabilize the large coastal shark population, facilitate enforcement,
and improve management of Atlantic shark resources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment and Regulatory
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) may
be obtained from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division
(SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 713-2347, fax (301) 713-1917.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Michael Bailey, John D. Kelly or
Margo B. Schulze, 301-713-2347, FAX 301-713-1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under
the FMP prepared by NMFS under authority of Section 304(g) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and implemented through regulations found at 50 CFR part
678. The current status of the commercial and recreational shark
fisheries, the status of the shark stocks, the proposed management
measures, and the anticipated effects of the proposed management
measures were discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR
67295, December 20, 1996) and are not repeated here.
The framework provisions of the FMP allow the Assistant
Administrator (AA) to make adjustments in specified management measures
in order to achieve the FMP's objectives of preventing overfishing, and
increasing the benefits of shark resources to the nation while reducing
waste. This action is being taken by the AA under authority of the
framework provisions of the FMP and consistent with the provisions of
305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Comments and Responses
Comments were requested for the measures in the proposed rule. The
comment period on the proposed rule was originally scheduled to end on
January 21, 1997. Four public hearings were held on the proposed rule.
Due to scheduling conflicts for the final hearing, the public comment
period was extended until January 24, 1997 (62 FR 1872, January 14,
1997). Based on public request, the comment period was again extended
until February 7, 1997 (62 FR 4239, January 29, 1997), to allow for
additional public input.
NMFS received more than 600 written comments from members of
Congress, regional fishery management councils, states, the U.S. Coast
Guard, conservation organizations, a scientific organization,
scientists from four universities, scientists from a marine laboratory,
recreational fishing associations, marine oriented publications,
recreational fishermen involved in the party/charter boat business, a
business that sells shark parts, commercial fishermen, commercial
fishermen's associations, a fisheries development foundation,
individuals, and a shark fishery observer. NMFS also received verbal
comments on this rule at public hearings and other public meetings.
Agency responses to public comments follow.
1. Large Coastal Shark Commercial Quota
NMFS received several hundred comments regarding the large coastal
shark commercial quota. In addition to numerous individuals, seventy-
four comments from members of Congress, regional fishery management
councils, states, conservation organizations, a scientific
organization, and recreational fishing associations support a 50
percent or higher commercial quota reduction for large coastal sharks
as a minimum measure to rebuild the large coastal shark population.
Other commentors, including one state and several commercial
fishermen's associations, questioned the effectiveness of the quota
reduction and/or strenuously opposed the quota reduction and stated
that the scientific data, upon which the 1996 Stock Evaluation Workshop
(SEW) final report is based, are incomplete, flawed, and/or biased.
Comment: Stock assessment results indicate that large coastal
sharks remain overfished and that rebuilding has not begun. Demographic
analyses show that effective fishing mortality needs to be halved in
order for large coastal sharks to recover. NMFS needs to take action
immediately and reduce the commercial quota for large coastal sharks by
50 percent at a minimum.
Response: NMFS agrees that the 1996 SEW final report indicates that
large coastal sharks remain overfished and that a risk-averse approach
is needed. A 50 percent reduction in commercial quota for large
coastals is an approximation to halving current effective fishing
mortality. Production model analyses indicate that a 50 percent
reduction in effective fishing mortality is likely to maintain large
coastal sharks near 1996 levels. This will ensure that allowable
catches of large coastals are consistent with the best available
scientific information and reduce the probability of further declines
until a new rebuilding schedule can be developed. The final action is
intended as an interim measure because NMFS intends to update the
scientific information to the extent practicable and to develop a long-
term rebuilding schedule for large coastal sharks. NMFS intends to
implement this updated rebuilding schedule through an FMP amendment in
consultation with an Advisory Panel (AP) as required by the amended
Magnuson-Stevens Act. At that time, NMFS will analyze alternative
management measures, such as nursery/pupping ground closures and
minimum sizes, and may adjust commercial quota levels if alternative
management measures can supplement quotas in controlling effective
fishing mortality. Towards this end, NMFS has accelerated an ongoing
effort to determine the potential effects of these alternative
management measures on fishing mortality.
Comment: NMFS should close the large coastal commercial fishery
until there is clear evidence that rebuilding has been initiated.
[[Page 16649]]
Response: NMFS disagrees that a fishery closure is necessary to
initiate rebuilding of large coastal sharks at this time. The 1996 SEW
final report indicates that the rapid rate of decline that
characterized the stock in the mid 1980's has slowed significantly and
that there is no statistically significant evidence of further decline
since the FMP was implemented, indicating that the FMP management
measures implemented have been working. While it is true that clear
evidence of rebuilding is not available, NMFS believes that the final
action will reduce the probability of further declines until
alternative management measures are developed. The 1996 SEW production
model analyses, which are probabilistic in nature, also indicate that a
50 percent reduction in quota may lead to slow rebuilding.
Additionally, a fishery closure would impose substantial hardship on
the commercial fishing sector and would likely increase fishing
pressure on other fishery resources, particularly the fully fished
small coastal and pelagic sharks.
Comment: NMFS should not reduce the large coastal shark quota at
all. Recent increases in some catch per unit effort indices in addition
to significant uncertainty in accuracy of data, model simulation
results, and interpretation of assessment results do not warrant
drastic reductions. NMFS should address alternative management
measures, which might mitigate or eliminate the need for quota
reductions, before making significant changes in commercial quotas.
Response: NMFS is aware that different interpretations exist
regarding the accuracy and interpretation of the 1996 SEW stock
assessment results. These differences are an important part of the
scientific process which involves rigorous discussion and analysis of
all interpretations of assessment results. However, NMFS does not
believe that disagreement or uncertainty preclude valid management
actions. It is true that some catch rate indices have shown recent
increases and that assessment results can be interpreted to support the
status quo for quota levels. However, it should be noted that none of
those increases in catch rate indices were statistically significant
because of high variability in the data. Until a long-term rebuilding
schedule which includes alternative management measures can be analyzed
and developed, NMFS believes that a risk-averse approach is necessary
to reduce the probability of further declines.
Comment: The State of North Carolina expressed concern with the
proposed 50 percent reduction in the quota by stating: ``Our concern
with quota reduction as the sole method of achieving the reduction in
fishing mortality is that the population simulation models are based on
data that are inadequate to incorporate the benefits of the management
measures implemented in the FMP in 1993. These data are not available
because increases in production since the 1993 FMP have not entered the
fishery.''
Response: NMFS believes that there is measurable evidence of the
effects of management since implementation of the FMP. The 1996 SEW
final report states that the rapid rate of decline that characterized
the large coastal shark stocks in the mid 1980's has slowed
significantly. However, no clear evidence is available that rebuilding
has begun. The report also states that additional reductions in fishing
mortality would improve the probability of stock increases. The
commercial quota reduction for large coastal species is intended to be
an interim measure while other management options are examined.
Comment: The 1996 SEW analyses did not account for gear changes
made by the industry to use lighter leaders and smaller hooks that
result in increased bite-offs, lowered catches and catch rate indices,
and smaller size of fish landed.
Response: NMFS is aware that changes in fishing patterns, including
gear modifications, can affect stock assessment results but currently
is unable to account for such gear modifications quantitatively due to
lack of detailed data. Nevertheless, this change in fishing practice
was taken into account by comparing trends in affected and unaffected
catch rate indices. Gear modifications including changes like lighter
leaders and smaller hooks occurred only in the longline commercial
fisheries. However, the 1996 SEW stock assessment for large coastal
sharks included many different catch rate indices from several
different commercial and recreational fisheries (see the 1996 SEW final
report detailed discussion), including fishery independent longline
indices which also show catch per unit effort declines. Therefore, NMFS
believes that declines in catch rates, as evidenced from all catch
rates indices analyzed in the stock assessment, are real. NMFS will
continue to include consideration of these issues in analyzing and
developing a long-term rebuilding plan.
Comment: Significant amounts of data on shark landings,
particularly data on fin landings, have not been incorporated in the
stock assessments, which may substantially bias assessment results.
Response: It is NMFS' practice to incorporate landings information
into stock assessments, to the extent appropriate, once it has been
verified for authenticity, and is in a usable format. Not all data that
exist in raw form can or should be included in stock assessments.
However, NMFS is aware that some data may not have been included in the
stock assessments because they were unavailable (e.g., copies not
provided to NMFS, not in electronic form, etc.). To this end, NMFS
intends to work with industry to recover missing data and use them, if
appropriate and practicable, in order to increase stock assessment
accuracy and precision.
Comment: Quota reductions may increase, not decrease, effective
fishing mortality as well as increase regulatory discards and mortality
of sharks that cannot be landed during a closed season. Thus National
Standard 5, which requires that ``conservation and management measures
shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of
fishery resources,'' and National Standard 9, which requires that
``conservation and management measures shall, to the extent
practicable, minimize bycatch and to the extent such bycatch cannot be
avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch,'' will be violated as
the shark fishery becomes increasingly less efficient and regulatory
discards increase.
Response: NMFS believes that the large coastal shark quota
reduction will reduce effective fishing mortality, consistent with the
best available scientific information. NMFS has concluded that any
decrease in efficiency due to a reduced quota is outweighed by the
benefits of preventing further declines while alternative management
measures are developed. In terms of increased regulatory discards and
the associated mortality of sharks during a closed season, NMFS does
not believe that maintaining commercial quota levels above sustainable
levels in order to reduce discards is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Alternative fishing methods are available to reduce the
unwanted catch of sharks (e.g., gear modifications like lighter
leaders, avoiding inshore pupping and nursery grounds where juvenile
sharks congregate, checking and resetting gear frequently if shark
catches are high, etc.) that could reduce regulatory discards. At this
time, the AA does not have the authority to create a bycatch set-aside
from the commercial quota for the Atlantic shark fishery. However, as
this final rule is intended to be effective until an FMP amendment can
be
[[Page 16650]]
developed, NMFS may examine the need to restructure the shark
commercial fishery to create a bycatch and discard set-aside to account
for this source of mortality. Finally, NMFS has proposed regulations to
address overcapitalization of the shark commercial fishery through a
limited access proposal that is intended to help reduce derby fishing
conditions and thereby, reduce inefficiency in the shark fishery (61 FR
68202). Some preliminary comments on this proposed rule, which would
include creation of an incidental permit category, also call for an
``incidental'' quota or set-aside.
Comment: The State of North Carolina was concerned that there may
be a conflict with National Standards 4 and 6. The state also requested
clarification of National Standard 10, which requires that
``Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent
practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea'' as it relates to
the shortened quota coinciding with the state's winter season.
Response: Regarding National Standard 4, the FMP established an
allocation scheme between recreational and commercial catches, and
semiannual commercial quotas allow for two fishing seasons with equal
harvest allocations. The large coastal shark quota reduction reduces
the quota equally for both fishing seasons and the recreational bag
limits are reduced to maintain the FMP's allocation scheme; therefore,
the final management measures are fair and equitable to all fishermen.
NMFS' action is consistent with National Standard 6. NMFS has
examined the biological and socio-economic impacts of this final rule
in the accompanying Final Environmental Assessment and Regulatory
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. National Standard
6 requires flexibility and the ability to address circumstances as they
arise; NMFS is responding to the most recent stock assessment. The
agency did account for variations and contingencies by reducing the
large coastal commercial quota, thereby preventing further decline
while a rebuilding program is developed. Any changed circumstances in
the future will be addressed by NMFS, in consultation with the AP.
Regarding National Standard 10, NMFS' analyses indicate that the
winter shark fishery for North Carolina ranges from October through
December and that the fishery has not previously been open during these
months for that state. NMFS is aware that derby fishing conditions can
develop when quota reductions are proposed and, within the constraints
of regulatory processes, NMFS has attempted to prevent these conditions
from developing. For example, NMFS implemented a 4,000 lb trip limit
for large coastal sharks in an attempt to slow the pace of the fishery;
this trip limit is currently in effect. However, individuals must
decide for themselves whether or not it is safe to fish, and NMFS
encourages fishermen to consider safety issues first and foremost prior
to making the decision to participate in the fishery.
Comment: One commercial fishermen's association commented that NMFS
should follow through on the 1994 SEW's recommendation to protect
pupping areas and juvenile sharks, rather than halve the quota.
Response: NMFS does not have regulatory authority over inshore
waters where most shark nursery/pupping areas are located; however,
NMFS has been actively working with the coastal states to reach
agreement on cooperative efforts to protect these critical nursery/
pupping areas. NMFS has greatly accelerated ongoing research to develop
a nursery ground index and may use the information from these research
efforts to develop, as part of the long-term rebuilding plan,
management measures with states to close specific areas to fishing
activity when gravid females and/or shark pups are present in those
areas.
Comment: One commercial fishermen's association commented that
foreign catches of large coastal and pelagic sharks must be quantified
and considered in order for stock assessments to include complete and
accurate data and be in compliance with National Standard 3, which
states that ``to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish
shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated
stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.''
Response: NMFS has and will continue to work closely with fisheries
scientists and managers from Atlantic coastal states, Canada, and
Mexico to assess the state of shared stocks. NMFS believes that
international cooperation and management of shared shark stocks is very
important to shark conservation and prevention of overfishing. However,
NMFS believes that domestic action is needed immediately and this
interim quota reduction is a risk-averse action, based on the best
scientific data available, to protect all sharks found in U.S. waters,
not only shared stocks.
Comment: The lack of a rational rebuilding schedule should be
addressed before severe, short term measures are implemented.
Response: NMFS agrees that a rebuilding schedule needs to be
developed to address the overfished status of large coastal sharks.
However, NMFS disagrees that action should await a rebuilding schedule
to be implemented in an amendment to the shark FMP. The rebuilding plan
outlined in the original FMP was determined to be inadequate to achieve
the goal of rebuilding the large costal shark resource to a level
consistent with MSY (60 FR 21468, May 2, 1995). The 1996 SEW final
report indicates that a 50 percent reduction in effective fishing
mortality should stabilize the large coastal shark population near
current levels. This action is intended to reduce the probability of
further declines as the rebuilding schedule is developed.
Comment: NMFS has not taken into account the impacts of a large
coastal shark quota reduction on shoreside entities, which are
primarily small businesses. Reducing the large coastal shark quota will
ruin the domestic shark meat market because the extended fishery
closures and market gluts disallow advanced planning required for shark
meat buyers to distribute and advertise the product.
Response: NMFS believes that most shoreside entities in the shark
fishery process and sell wet and/or dry shark fins. Information
available to NMFS indicates that few shoreside entities deal
exclusively in domestic shark fins. Such fin dealers import the
majority of fins from other countries and then re-export them
unprocessed or semi-processed to the Asian fin market. Accordingly,
U.S. shoreside fin dealers supplement exports with domestic shark fins
but do not rely on the domestic market. Because domestic shark fins
make up a very small percentage of the U.S. fin dealer product, a large
coastal shark domestic quota reduction would have negligible impact on
such shoreside entities gross revenues.
On the other hand, there is a limited domestic market for shark
meat that could be negatively impacted by a reduced supply of product.
However, the commercial large coastal shark fishery has been open for
only a few months each year such that shark meat buyers necessarily
have diversified. Additionally, shark meat is not a high value product
and is readily substituted by other products. Reducing the season, even
if by half, should not have a substantial impact because of the already
short fishing season, low value and volume of shark meat processed, and
the high degree of diversity in shoreside operations. In consultation
with an AP, NMFS may develop a market analysis for the shark fin
industry which may include an estimate
[[Page 16651]]
of the impacts of regulations on processors and society.
Comment: Numerous commentors were concerned that the final rule is
inconsistent with National Standard 2, which states; ``Conservation and
management measures shall be based upon the best available scientific
information available.'' Several fishermen's associations questioned
the accuracy and reliability of the 1996 SEW Report, and stated that
the 50% quota reduction was not a mandate, or even a recommendation of,
the SEW. In addition, some commentors contended that the SEW Report did
not recommend a 50% reduction in effective fishing effort through a 50%
quota reduction.
Response: The 1996 Report of the SEW is based on a meeting of NMFS
and non-NMFS scientists. The non-NMFS scientists included
representatives from two fishery management councils, two states, a
fisheries development foundation, industry, and academia. All 1996 SEW
participants were given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the
report. However, the final report was written and edited by NMFS
scientists and is not, nor was ever intended to be, a consensus
document. The 1996 SEW final report heavily weighs all stock assessment
participants' views in its conclusions and recommendations. While
different interpretations exist regarding the accuracy and implications
of the stock assessment results, the 1996 SEW final report represents
the best scientific data available to NMFS. The commercial quota
reduction is a risk-averse action to ensure that allowable catch levels
of Atlantic sharks are consistent with the best available scientific
information until an updated rebuilding schedule can be developed.
Comment: One fishermen's association commented that the Shark
Operations Team (OT) did not consent to a 50% quota reduction, and
claims that NMFS apparently selectively consulted outside of the OT
meeting with certain OT members who support dramatic reductions, which
may violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Response: In the proposed rule (61 FR 67295, December 20, 1996),
the statement ``Members of the OT were consulted and some members have
been instrumental in the formulation of this proposed rule; * * *''
meant that; 1) some OT members agreed with the determination of the
SEW, and 2) NMFS scientists who are also OT members have been and will
continue to be routinely consulted on an ongoing basis. NMFS did not
meet with non-NMFS OT members except at the public OT meeting in August
1996. NMFS agrees that the OT did not reach consensus regarding a
commercial quota reduction. The final action is being taken
independently by the AA under authority of the framework provisions of
the FMP because no consensus was reached by the OT and NMFS has
concluded that action was necessary. NMFS did, however, take into
account the various opinions raised at the OT meeting.
2. Pelagic Shark Commercial Quota
NMFS received 65 comments regarding the pelagic shark commercial
quota from members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,
states, conservation organizations, scientific organizations, and
recreational fishing associations. Comment: NMFS should maintain the
current commercial pelagic shark quota. Pelagic sharks are determined
to be fully-fished and the commercial quota, which was established to
ensure that the total allowable catch (TAC) does not exceed a level
that would preclude maximum sustainable yield (MSY), should not be
adjusted without new scientific analyses and information.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Comment: NMFS should reduce the pelagic shark commercial quota by
50 percent because the quota has never been reached.
Response: No change in the commercial quota for pelagic sharks was
proposed in this action. No new analyses have been presented upon which
to modify MSY or the TAC of pelagic sharks. Accordingly, the estimates
of MSY and TAC presented in the FMP still constitute the best available
scientific information. Until new analyses are presented, adjustments
to the pelagic shark quota are not warranted. NMFS intends to amend the
FMP to address the overfished status of large coastal sharks. At that
time, the pelagic shark quota may be adjusted if new analyses warrant
modifications.
3. Small Coastal Shark Commercial Quota
NMFS received numerous comments regarding the small coastal shark
commercial quota from members of Congress, regional fishery management
councils, states, conservation organizations, scientific organizations,
and recreational fishing associations. Several commentors support
establishment of the proposed commercial quota for small coastal
sharks, while others argued that no quota was justified or that smaller
commercial quotas for small coastal sharks were more appropriate.
Comment: NMFS should implement a commercial quota for small coastal
sharks to prevent large increases in fishing pressure that may result
from closure of other fishery resources.
Response: NMFS agrees.
Comment: NMFS should not implement a commercial quota for small
coastal sharks because they are not considered overfished and because
the proposed quota is much greater than historical landings.
Response: The FMP concluded that small coastal sharks were fully
fished, meaning that fishing mortality levels should not increase or
overfishing may occur. NMFS believes that potential displacement of
vessels and crews from the large coastal shark fishery into other
fisheries, including pelagic and small coastal shark fisheries, may
result in increased fishing mortality on small coastal sharks. NMFS
believes that implementing the commercial quota outlined in the FMP is
a preventative measure to ensure that any increases in fishing
mortality do not exceed allowable levels.
4. Recreational Bag Limits
NMFS has received numerous comments concerning recreational bag
limits from members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,
states, individual scientists, conservation organizations, recreational
fishing associations, one fisheries development foundation, and party/
charter boat owners.
Comment: Recreational bag limits should be reduced as they are
currently excessively high and promote waste.
Response: NMFS agrees, with one exception noted below.
Comment: Recreational bag limits should not be reduced.
Response: The 1996 SEW final report determined that large coastal
sharks continue to be overfished and that a 50 percent reduction in
effective fishing mortality should stabilize the stock at current
levels. Based on this report, which constitutes the best available
scientific information, NMFS believes that the bag limits, as well as
the commercial quota, should be reduced to further protect and conserve
the stocks. Recreational bag limits are reduced within the current
allocation scheme (established in the FMP) between commercial and
recreational fishing interests. Without a reduction in the bag limit
equal to the percentage reduction in the commercial quota, the positive
benefits of a reduction in effective fishing mortality in the
commercial sector may be negated by increased fishing mortality in the
recreational sector.
[[Page 16652]]
Comment: Given the status of the small coastal stock and recent
landings, adding this group into an aggregate bag limit is overly
restrictive and unfair to party/charterboats.
Response: The rationale for adding the small coastal sharks into an
aggregate bag limit is the significant, widespread misidentification of
sharks, especially juvenile large coastal sharks identified as small
coastal sharks. NMFS believes that adding small coastal sharks to a
species aggregate with large coastals will reduce fishing mortality on
large coastals and contribute to stock recovery. However, after further
review of landings data and consultation with NMFS and non-NMFS
scientists, NMFS recognizes that an additional allowance for Atlantic
sharpnose sharks, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, would alleviate some of
the impacts on recreational operations. A separate bag limit for
Atlantic sharpnose is likely to increase fishing mortality on this
species as fishing patterns shift away from other species. However, the
life history of this species and stable population trends since the
1970's despite considerable bycatch mortality indicate that Atlantic
sharpnose sharks will not be negatively impacted by a separate bag
limit. Accordingly, NMFS is changing the proposed reduction in bag
limits (two sharks per vessel per trip) to the following: Two sharks
per vessel per trip, for any combination of species except Atlantic
sharpnose sharks, which will have a bag limit of two fish per person
per trip.
Comment: Several commentors stated grouping all shark species into
one recreational bag limit is not warranted given the status of pelagic
and small coastal sharks, the ease of differentiating pelagic sharks
from other species, and the differences in the fisheries.
Response: NMFS agrees that species-specific management would be a
preferred means of managing the fishery given sufficient stock
assessment data and accuracy of species identification in landings.
However, as stated above, widespread misidentification of sharks
continues to be a problem that requires attention because of the
overfished large coastals. Additionally, NMFS believes that potential
displacement of vessels and crews from the large coastal shark fishery
into other fisheries, including pelagic and small coastal shark
fisheries, warrants adopting a single recreational bag limit for all
shark species combined with the exception for Atlantic sharpnose sharks
as stated above. NMFS agrees that, for certain species that are readily
identifiable, species-specific management measures may be possible in
the future. NMFS has accelerated efforts to develop a useful shark
identification manual and training for fishermen.
5. Prohibited Species
Numerous members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,
states, conservation organizations, scientific associations, and
recreational fishing associations support the species prohibitions
whereas other recreational fishing associations oppose the
prohibitions. Numerous scientists expressed their concern that a
prohibition would adversely affect ongoing research into these five
species.
Comment: Some species of sharks are especially vulnerable to
overexploitation and extra protection should be afforded those species
in the form of directed fishery closures or prevention of fishery
development.
Response: NMFS agrees and has determined that five species of
sharks that are highly susceptible to overfishing should be excluded
from directed fishing to prevent overfishing and to prevent development
of commercial and/or recreational fisheries. The whale shark (Rhincodon
typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), sand tiger shark
(Odontaspis taurus), bigeye sand tiger shark (Odontaspis noronhai), and
white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), are removed from the large
coastal species group and are reclassified as prohibited species. These
species are either encountered very rarely in commercial shark
fisheries or are not landed because they are not marketable. Therefore,
this action is a preventative measure to ensure that overfishing of
these species does not occur. In order to continue scientific research
on these species, previously issued provisions that allow for
scientific research activity and exempted fishing apply (61 FR 26435,
May 28, 1996).
6. White Shark Recreational Catch-and-Release Only Fishery
Numerous members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,
states, conservation organizations, scientific associations, and
recreational fishing associations support the proposed prohibitions on
directed fishing for, landing of, or sale of white sharks. Several
recreational fishing associations and commercial fishermen's
associations oppose the prohibition. One conservation organization
commented that the catch-and-release program may cause increased
mortality. Numerous scientists expressed concern that a prohibition on
landing would adversely affect ongoing research on white sharks.
Comment: The white shark is especially vulnerable to overfishing
and since no directed commercial fishery exists at this time,
prohibited status should be afforded this species to prevent a directed
fishery from developing.
Response: NMFS agrees. The white shark is relatively rare in
commercial landings data and very little is known of its reproductive
biology and potential. Some evidence suggests that white sharks may
practice uterine cannibalism, like sand tiger sharks, and may be highly
susceptible to overfishing. NMFS believes that the white shark deserves
special protection but acknowledges that there is, in parts of their
range, an active recreational fishery for the white shark. Therefore,
NMFS removes the white shark from the large coastal species group,
making it a commercially prohibited species, and restricts fishing for
white sharks to recreational catch-and-release only. This action will
prevent a directed fishery from developing, thereby preventing
overfishing, while still allowing traditional recreational fishing to
continue. Similar to other prohibitions, previously issued provisions
that allow for scientific research activity and exempted fishing apply.
Additionally, NMFS may consider tagging and reporting requirements for
the white shark fishery in the future. Those fishermen who wish to tag
white sharks are encouraged to participate in a NMFS-approved tag-and-
release program. Tags may be obtained from the NMFS Cooperative Tagging
Program, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive,
Miami, FL, 33149, or the NMFS APEX Predator Investigation Cooperative
Shark Tagging Program, 28 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882.
Comment: Catch-and-release fishing for white sharks may cause
increased mortality.
Response: NMFS is aware that there is limited information regarding
post-release survival for white sharks and that there may be some
mortality associated with a catch-and-release-only fishery. However, it
is unlikely that mortality would increase from this action because all
recreationally caught white sharks will be required to be released,
whereas not all are released now. Therefore, even with some post-
release mortality, the increased release rate should decrease mortality
overall.
7. Prohibition on Filleting at Sea
NMFS received general support for the prohibition on filleting
sharks prior to landing; however, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S.
Small Business
[[Page 16653]]
Administration (SBA) commented that costs would increase.
Comment: Prohibiting filleting at sea will increase costs to vessel
owner/operators because they will be required to fillet only once in
port. Currently, they are allowed to fillet sharks while steaming into
port, which saves processing time and reduces labor costs.
Response: NMFS recognizes that costs will likely increase somewhat
but believes that the benefits of increased species-specific
identification and verification greatly outweigh those costs. NMFS
believes that the prohibition is necessary to aid in identification of
landings by dealers who must report by species. Additionally, NMFS
believes that many fishermen currently allow processors to fillet their
sharks such that any increase in costs for the fleet would be
minimized. NMFS adopts this prohibition without change. Sharks must be
landed and brought to the point of first landing with the flesh
attached and the spinal column present. Fishermen may remove the head
and fins and eviscerate the catch.
8. Species-Specific Identification Requirement
NMFS generally received support that requiring species-specific
identification of all sharks landed will improve management. Numerous
dealers and commercial and recreational fishermen requested information
on identification of sharks.
9. Other comments.
Comment: Several commercial shark fishermen, persons involved in
shark processing, commercial fishermen's associations, and one legal
representative of shark fishery interests commented that NMFS'
determination of no significant economic impact was flawed and vastly
underestimated the impact of a 50 percent quota reduction on all shark
fishermen. In addition, the SBA issued a letter to NMFS indicating
their disagreement with the determination. The SBA stated that most, if
not all, shark fishermen are small businesses that would suffer a
directly corresponding reduction in gross revenue from a large coastal
shark quota reduction.
Response: No evidence is available to NMFS to support the
assumption that there exists a directed fishery for sharks that
consists exclusively of specialist shark fishermen who do not harvest
any other species of fish. NMFS' permit database indicates that 97.7
percent of shark fishers hold permits for other commercial fishing
permits from the Southeast Regional Permit Office (SERO), which further
supports the multi-species nature of the fleet. Even so, the 2.4
percent who do not hold other SERO permits might hold permits from
other offices (e.g., Atlantic tunas) or may not be active in the shark
fishery, although no integrated database exists for cross-comparison.
Since vessels habitually switch to other fisheries as part of the
multi-species nature of the fleet, reduction of the time spent in the
shark fishery will not affect switching cost; switching still occurs
once or twice a year. In addition, since implementation of the FMP in
1993, the fishery has only been open for a short period of time
annually and NMFS believes that few, if any, fishermen are exclusively
dependent upon income from the large coastal shark fishery. Therefore,
alternative sources of income have been necessary, either from other
fisheries or other occupations. While NMFS agrees with SBA that most
shark vessels are considered small businesses, SBA incorrectly assumes
that a reduction in large coastal shark quotas will lead to a directly
corresponding reduction in gross ex-vessel revenues of fishermen.
Comment: The State of Florida and two conservation organizations
requested that NMFS prohibit the landing of additional species, namely
certain rays and sawfish.
Response: NMFS may investigate the need for affording protection to
additional species not currently included in the management unit.
Adjustment of the management unit to include additional species would
require an FMP amendment.
Comment: The State of Georgia requested that NMFS place additional
restrictions on the use of gillnets in the shark fishery.
Response: Gear restrictions are not currently within the scope of
the framework authority under the FMP. NMFS intends to amend the FMP to
address alternative management measures and, at that time, may examine
the possibility of gear restrictions.
Comment: Numerous conservation organizations and individuals
suggested a 100 lb. minimum size for mako sharks.
Response: NMFS has previously considered a minimum size for mako
sharks. A minimum size for mako sharks was rejected in the FMP because
of inadequate supporting biological information. No new analyses have
been presented to indicate a modification of the current management for
mako sharks is warranted. NMFS may address possible use of minimum
sizes for this and other species as part of the long-term rebuilding
plan.
Comment: Two conservation organizations commented that quota
overruns should be subtracted from the following years' quotas.
Response: This is not currently within the authority of the FMP.
Current regulations allow for the adjustment between quota periods
within a single year. NMFS may investigate the need for adjusting
quotas from year to year during the FMP amendment process.
Comment: One fishermen's association commented that NMFS must not
implement retroactive quota reductions.
Response: This is not a retroactive quota reduction. The proposed
rule was published on December 20, 1996. The fishing year for the
Atlantic shark fishery began on January 1, 1997, and the fishery has
been ongoing while NMFS has considered comments on the proposed rule.
While this action affects all landings beginning January 1, 1997, it is
reasonable because quotas have been in place since 1993 and fishery
participants are cognizant of annual quota adjustments. Additionally,
NMFS believes that any delay in the implementation of the effective
date of this action will result in the quota being exceeded for the
first season and possibly for the second season.
Other Issues: NMFS was provided with additional data and analyses
from a fishermen's association for further consideration. The submitted
data include species composition, nominal catch rate, and standardized
abundance index information from research surveys conducted by the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (the precursor to NMFS), the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, and NMFS during the period 1957-1996. No
conclusions were presented about the status of sharks. Further, this
information has not been reviewed or analysed by any other scientists
so the scientific reliability of the approaches taken to developing the
depicted trends in catch rates is unknown. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to use the statistics presented to modify the conclusions
made in the 1996 SEW final report until such analyses are conducted.
The commentor concludes that the analysis presented raises questions
about the reliability of the large coastal shark stock declines
developed in the 1996 stock assessment. However, the information
depicted for the standardized abundance index for combined catches of
sandbar, dusky, silky, and blacktip sharks caught in the western North
Atlantic Ocean indicates a decline of about 80 percent from 1986-1996,
with each year's abundance index being less than the previous year's
abundance index, except in 1992 and
[[Page 16654]]
1994. While these data may raise questions about the magnitude of
declines in shark populations, as estimated by the 1996 SEW final
report, they do indicate, consistent with the 1996 SEW final report, a
substantial decline. Indeed, they may represent an even greater decline
than that presented in the 1996 SEW final report. In any event, NMFS
has concluded that they are not sufficient to justify allowing the
fishery to continue without the recommended reduction in effective
fishing mortality. The data presented apparently warrant further
assessment by the scientific community and should be examined for
possible additional modification to future commercial quotas by the
scientific community.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
Recreational Bag Limits
Based on public comments, one management measure has been changed.
NMFS has determined that a separate bag limit for Atlantic sharpnose
sharks is warranted for the reason outlined above. Therefore, the
recreational bag limit is as follows: 2 sharks per vessel per trip, for
any combination of species except Atlantic sharpnose sharks, which will
have a bag limit of 2 fish per person per trip.
White shark recreational fishery
NMFS has changed tag-and-release to catch-and-release-only
recreational fishing for the white shark. NMFS intends to submit for
OMB approval a new collection-of-information reporting requirement to
require that recreational fishing for white sharks operate under a tag-
and-release-only program.
Classification
The AA has determined that this rule is necessary for the
conservation and management of shark resources in the Atlantic Ocean
and is consistent with the national standards and other provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. This rule has been
determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Copies of
the EA/RIR/FRFA are available (see ADDRESSES). The EA/RIR/FRFA, in
combination with the SEW Report, constitutes the annual SAFE Report.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified at the proposed rule stage to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that
the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. No Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis was prepared. During the comment period, NMFS received
comments from the public and SBA that indicated that the proposed rule
may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. NMFS, in response to the issues raised during the comment
period, prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to
ensure a thorough analysis of the impacts.
In summary, given the multispecies and multigear nature of the
commercial shark fishery and the existing management regulations that
control the harvest of sharks, few additional costs are expected to be
incurred by reducing the size of the directed shark fishery quota. At
present, the shark fishery for large coastal species lasts only a few
months twice a year and most, if not all, participants have already had
to diversify into other fisheries to maintain their financial
viability. Evidence available to NMFS indicates that it is highly
unlikely that vessel operators could survive a fishery that lasts a
total of less than four months a year without alternative sources of
income, either from other fisheries or other occupations. In addition,
the permit database indicates that 97.7 percent of permitted shark
fishers hold other fishing permits from the Southeast Regional Permit
Office (SERO). Even so, the 2.4 percent who do not hold other SERO
permits might hold permits from other offices (e.g. Atlantic tunas) or
may not participate in the Atlantic shark fishery. NMFS estimates that
a directed shark fisher would earn at most $26,426 in gross revenues -
not income - from the large coastal shark fishery alone. These revenues
would be supplemented by income from fishing on other Atlantic sharks
and other species such as tunas and swordfish. Additionally, nearly all
Atlantic shark fishers operate in the multispecies longline fishery
where gear requirements are substantially similar and require only a
modification to fish at different depths. Since vessels habitually
access other fisheries, reduction of the time spent in the shark
fishery will not affect switching cost; the switching still occurs once
or twice a year. Accordingly, a reduction in large coastal shark quotas
is highly unlikely to lead to a directly-corresponding reduction in
gross ex-vessel revenues of fishers. The result is that a reduction in
quota should have relatively little impact on commercial shark fishing
firms since the season, even if cut by more than half, would not
adversely impact other harvesting operations that take up the majority
of the fishing season.
Additionally, nearly all Atlantic shark commercial fishers operate
in the multispecies longline fishery where gear requirements are
substantially similar and require only a modification to fish at
different depths. Since vessels habitually access other fisheries,
reduction of the time spent in the shark fishery will not affect
switching cost; the switching still occurs once or twice a year.
Estimates of additional cost to access other fisheries are therefore
expected to be minimal. The fact remains that most shark fishermen are
longline operators and that longlines are used to target Atlantic
tunas, swordfish, and other sharks as well. The other Atlantic sharks,
i.e. small coastals and pelagic sharks, are subject to quotas which are
higher than historical catch levels (the pelagic shark fishery has
never been closed). It should also be noted that, the current trip
limit for large coastal sharks is designed, in part, to mitigate the
impact of restrictive quotas on the industry. Trip limits help to
extend the season, minimize market glut, and thereby maintain higher
prices.
NMFS notes that the Atlantic tunas fishery is open access, and that
with the exception of bluefin tuna, Atlantic tunas are not subject to
quotas. The Atlantic swordfish fishery is currently open access and
subject to a quota, although the fishery has not been closed since the
fall of 1995. There is a proposal being developed to limit access to
the swordfish fishery, however any current participant with a history
of swordfish catch will be allowed to land and sell swordfish under the
rule as proposed. Therefore, displaced fishers could transfer effort to
the Atlantic tuna, reef fish, or coastal pelagic fisheries for king and
Spanish mackerel, and potentially to Atlantic swordfish if previous
participation can be documented.
The recreational shark fisheries are exploited primarily by private
boat, charter boat, and head boat based fishers although some shore
based fishers are active in the fishery in the Florida Keys. The
restriction of 2 shark per vessel per day could reduce consumer surplus
generated by a directed recreational shark fishing trip. However, the
costs of reducing the landings rate should be mitigated by the 2
Atlantic sharpnose per person per trip exception as well as alternative
directed recreational fishing trips for other fish species and by
catch-and-release fishing. In addition, the state territorial seas
should remain open subject to their respective landings regulations.
This could cause a reallocation of effort from offshore waters to
nearshore waters which could increase fishing pressure on juvenile
stocks. However, major changes in net benefits are not expected for
recreational fishers.
[[Page 16655]]
The prohibition of fishing for, landing or sale of whale, basking,
sand tiger, and bigeye sand tiger sharks will not adversely affect
gross revenue because whale, basking, and bigeye sand tiger sharks are
only incidentally encountered in commercial fisheries and sand tiger
sharks are not a marketable species at this time. The prohibition of
fishing for, landing or sale of white sharks will not adversely affect
gross revenue because they are only incidentally encountered in the
commercial fishery. Requiring the recreational white shark fishery to
operate under a catch-and-release-only program may reduce the
willingness of recreational anglers to pay for a fishing trip. The
prohibition on filleting of sharks at sea will have little economic
impact but will increase costs to operators through increased labor to
fillet carcasses once in port.
In response to comments, NMFS did modify the recreational bag
limits to allow additional limits for Atlantic sharpnose sharks. It was
determined that providing this additional allowance would alleviate
some of the impacts on recreational operations while not negatively
impacting the resource. NMFS is aware that there may be alternative
actions that could stabilize or improve the population status of
sharks. However, the 1996 SEW final report indicated the need for
immediate reductions in effective fishing mortality. Alternative
actions, such as minimum sizes and/or nursery and pupping area
closures, were recommended in general by the 1996 SEW as mechanisms to
implement the immediate reductions in effective fishing mortality
required. However, specific area closures or minimum sizes were not
examined. Further, implementation of such alternative actions would
require more scientific analyses and coordination with Atlantic states
and regional fishery management councils, which would delay the
implementation of fishing mortality reductions beyond the
recommendation of immediate action. However, NMFS, consistent with
recent requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is establishing an
advisory panel that will consider these alternatives and others that
could be less burdensome and could achieve the appropriate levels of
fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the shark resource in the
context of the FMP.
Further, under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d)(3), NMFS has determined that
there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date as such
a delay would be contrary to the public interest. Preliminary
commercial landings estimates indicate that as of March 15, 1997,
approximately 740 metric tons dressed weight of large coastal sharks
had been taken, which is 115 percent of the first semiannual quota of
642 metric tons dressed weight. If this harvest rate continues, it is
possible that a significant portion or the entire first semiannual
quota might be taken prior to the effective date of this action, if
delayed. Further, the second semiannual quota would have to be
decreased by the overage in the first semiannual quota, and this could
adversely affect the northern states if that overage is significant. If
this authority results in a closure action for the large coastal shark
fishery, NMFS has the ability to rapidly communicate the closure to
fishery participants through its FAX network or NOAA weather radio. To
the extent practicable, advance notice of such closure will be
provided.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This rule contains no new collection of information that may be
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act but refers to requirements that
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control
Number 0648-0016, 0648-0013, 0648-0205, 0648-0229, and 0648-0306. NMFS
intends to submit a tagging reporting requirement to OMB for approval.
The prohibitions section has been reordered to group similar or
associated prohibitions. In addition, paragraphs are now designated by
numbers for the purposes of clarification.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 678
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 1, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 678 is amended
as follows:
PART 678--ATLANTIC SHARKS
1. The authority citation for part 678 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 678.2, the definitions for ``Dress'', ``Eviscerate'',
and ``Fillet'' are added; and the definition for ``Management Unit'' is
amended by removing under paragraph (1), ``Basking sharks--
Cetorhinidae'', ``Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus``; ``Sand tiger
sharks--Odontaspididae'', ``Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai``,
``Sand tiger, Odontaspis taurus`` and ``Whale sharks--Rhincodontidae'',
``Whale shark, Rhincodon typus``, and by adding a new paragraph (4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 678.2 Definitions
* * * * *
Dress means to remove head, viscera, and fins, but does not include
removal of the backbone, halving, quartering, or otherwise further
reducing the carcass.
* * * * *
Eviscerate means removal of the alimentary organs only.
Fillet means to remove slices of fish flesh, of irregular size and
shape, from the carcass by cuts made parallel to the backbone.
* * * * *
Management Unit * * *
(4) Prohibited species:
Basking sharks - Cetorhinidae
Basking shark - Cetorhinidae maximus
Mackerel sharks - Lamnidae
White shark - Carcharodon carcharias
Sand tiger sharks - Odontaspididae
Bigeye sand tiger - Odontaspis noronhai
Sand tiger - Odontaspis taurus
Whale sharks - Rhincodontidae
Whale shark - Rhincodon typus
* * * * *
Sec. 678.5 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 678.5, in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) after ``market
category'' add ``, and species,''.
4. Section 678.7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 678.7 Prohibitions.
(a) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec. 620.7
of this chapter, and except as permitted under Sec. 678.29, it is
unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
(1) Fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or possess or attempt to
fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or possess the following prohibited
species:
Basking sharks-Cetorhinidae
Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus
Mackerel sharks-Lamnidae
White sharks-Carcharodon carcharias
Sand tiger sharks-Odontaspididae
Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai
Sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus
Whale sharks-Rhincodontidae
Whale shark, Rhincodon typus
(2) Sell shark from the management unit or be exempt from the bag
limits without a vessel permit as specified in Sec. 678.4(a)(1).
[[Page 16656]]
(3) Purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to purchase, trade, or
barter, a shark from the management unit without an annual dealer
permit, as specified in Sec. 678.4(a)(2).
(4) Falsify information required in Sec. 678.4(b) and (c) on an
application for a permit.
(5) Fail to display a permit, as specified in Sec. 678.4(h).
(6) Falsify or fail to provide information required to be
maintained, submitted, or reported, as specified in Sec. 678.5.
(7) Fail to make a shark available for inspection or provide data
on catch and effort, as required by Sec. 678.5(d).
(8) Falsify or fail to display and maintain vessel identification,
as required by Sec. 678.6.
(9) Falsify or fail to provide requested information regarding a
vessel's trip, as specified in Sec. 678.10(a).
(10) Fail to embark an observer on a trip when selected, as
specified in Sec. 678.10(b).
(11) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, harass, intimidate, or
interfere with a NMFS-approved observer aboard a vessel or prohibit or
bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, or refusal of reasonable
assistance, an observer from conducting his/her duties aboard a vessel.
(12) Fail to provide an observer with the required food,
accommodations, access, and assistance, as specified in Sec. 678.10(c).
(13) Remove the fins from a shark and discard the remainder, as
specified in Sec. 678.22 (a)(1).
(14) Possess shark fins, carcasses, or parts on board, or offload
shark fins from, a fishing vessel, except as specified in Sec. 678.22,
or possess shark carcasses or parts on board, or offload shark fins,
carcasses, or parts from, a vessel, except as specified in
Sec. 678.22(a)(2) and (3).
(15) Fail to release a shark that will not be retained in the
manner specified in Sec. 678.22(b).
(16) Land, or possess on any trip, shark in excess of the vessel
trip limit, as specified in Sec. 678.22(c)(1).
(17) Transfer a shark at sea, as specified in Secs. 678.22(c)(2)
and 678.23(e).
(18) Fillet a shark at sea, as specified in Sec. 678.22(d), except
that sharks may be eviscerated and the head and fins may be removed.
(19) Exceed the bag limits, as specified in Sec. 678.23 (a) through
(c), or operate a vessel with a shark on board in excess of the bag
limits, as specified in Sec. 678.23(d).
(20) Sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, trade, or barter,
a shark harvested in the EEZ, except as an owner or operator of a
vessel with a permit, as specified in Sec. 678.25(a), or sell, trade,
or barter, or attempt to sell, trade or barter, a shark from the
management unit, except as an owner or operator of a vessel with a
permit, as specified in Sec. 678.26.
(21) Purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to purchase, trade or
barter, shark meat or fins from the management unit from an owner or
operator of a vessel that does not possess a vessel permit, as
specified in Sec. 678.26(b); or sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to
sell, trade, or barter, a shark from the management unit, except to a
permitted dealer, as specified in Sec. 678.26(d).
(22) Sell, purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell,
purchase, trade, or barter, shark fins that are disproportionate to the
weight of carcasses landed, as specified in Sec. 678.26(c).
(23) Interfere with, obstruct, delay, or prevent by any means an
investigation, search, seizure, or disposition of seized property in
connection with enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(24) During a closure for a shark species group, retain a shark of
that species group on board a vessel that has been issued a permit
under Sec. 678.4, except as provided in Sec. 678.24(a), or sell,
purchase, trade, or barter or attempt to sell, purchase, trade, or
barter a shark of that species group, as specified in Sec. 678.24.
(25) Fish for sharks with a drift gillnet that is 2.5 km or more in
length or possess a shark aboard a vessel possessing such drift
gillnet, as specified in Sec. 678.21.
(b) [Reserved]
5. In Sec. 678.22, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 678.22 Harvest limitations.
* * * * *
(d) Filleting. (1) A shark from any of the three management units
that is possessed in the EEZ, or harvested by a vessel that has been
issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 678.4, may not be filleted at sea.
Sharks may be eviscerated and the head and fins may be removed.
6. In Sec. 678.23, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 678.23 Bag limits.
* * * * *
(b) Large coastal, small coastal and pelagic species, combined--2
per vessel per trip.
(c) Atlantic sharpnose shark--2 per person per trip.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 678.24, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 678.24 Commercial quotas.
* * * * *
(b) Semiannual. The following commercial quotas apply:
(1) For the period January 1 through June 30:
(i) Large coastal species--642 metric tons, dressed weight.
(ii) Small coastal species--880 metric tons, dressed weight.
(iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons, dressed weight.
(2) For the period July 1 through December 31:
(i) Large coastal species--642 metric tons, dressed weight.
(ii) Small coastal species--880 metric tons, dressed weight.
(iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons, dressed weight.
* * * * *
8. Section 678.29 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 678.29 Catch-and-release program.
(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, a person may
fish for, but not retain, white sharks with rod and reel only under a
catch and release program, provided the person releases and returns
such fish to the sea immediately with a minimum of injury.
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 97-8754 Filed 4-2-97; 8:53 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
