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

Home , Bigeye sand tiger, Sand tiger shark

16648 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE shark fisheries, the status of the shark percent or higher commercial quota stocks, the proposed management reduction for large coastal sharks as a National Oceanic and Atmospheric measures, and the anticipated effects of minimum measure to rebuild the large Administration the proposed management measures coastal shark population. Other were discussed in the preamble to the commentors, including one state and 50 CFR Part 678 proposed rule (61 FR 67295, December several commercial fishermen’s [Docket No. 961211348-7065-03; I.D. 20, 1996) and are not repeated here. associations, questioned the 092396B] The framework provisions of the FMP effectiveness of the quota reduction allow the Assistant Administrator (AA) and/or strenuously opposed the quota RIN 0648±AH77 to make adjustments in specified reduction and stated that the scientific Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Quotas, Bag management measures in order to data, upon which the 1996 Stock Limits, Prohibitions, and Requirements achieve the FMP’s objectives of Evaluation Workshop (SEW) final report preventing overfishing, and increasing is based, are incomplete, flawed, and/or AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the benefits of shark resources to the biased. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and nation while reducing waste. This Comment: Stock assessment results Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), action is being taken by the AA under indicate that large coastal sharks remain Commerce. authority of the framework provisions of overfished and that rebuilding has not ACTION: Final rule. the FMP and consistent with the begun. Demographic analyses show that provisions of 305(c) of the Magnuson- effective fishing mortality needs to be SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to Stevens Act. halved in order for large coastal sharks implement certain measures authorized Comments and Responses to recover. NMFS needs to take action by the Fishery Management Plan for immediately and reduce the commercial Comments were requested for the Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (FMP). quota for large coastal sharks by 50 measures in the proposed rule. The These measures: Reduce commercial percent at a minimum. quotas for large coastal sharks, reduce comment period on the proposed rule Response: NMFS agrees that the 1996 recreational bag limits; establish a was originally scheduled to end on SEW final report indicates that large commercial quota for small coastal January 21, 1997. Four public hearings coastal sharks remain overfished and sharks; prohibit directed commercial were held on the proposed rule. Due to that a risk-averse approach is needed. A fishing for, landing of, or sale of five scheduling conflicts for the final 50 percent reduction in commercial species of sharks; establish a hearing, the public comment period was quota for large coastals is an recreational catch-and-release only extended until January 24, 1997 (62 FR approximation to halving current fishery for white sharks; prohibit 1872, January 14, 1997). Based on effective fishing mortality. Production filleting of sharks at sea; and refers to public request, the comment period was model analyses indicate that a 50 the requirement for species-specific again extended until February 7, 1997 percent reduction in effective fishing identification by all owners or (62 FR 4239, January 29, 1997), to allow mortality is likely to maintain large operators, dealers, and tournament for additional public input. coastal sharks near 1996 levels. This operators of all sharks landed under the NMFS received more than 600 written will ensure that allowable catches of framework provisions of the FMP. This comments from members of Congress, large coastals are consistent with the rule is intended to reduce effective regional fishery management councils, best available scientific information and fishing mortality, stabilize the large states, the U.S. Coast Guard, reduce the probability of further coastal shark population, facilitate conservation organizations, a scientific declines until a new rebuilding enforcement, and improve management organization, scientists from four schedule can be developed. The final of Atlantic shark resources. universities, scientists from a marine action is intended as an interim measure EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 1997. laboratory, recreational fishing associations, marine oriented because NMFS intends to update the ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final publications, recreational fishermen scientific information to the extent Environmental Assessment and involved in the party/charter boat practicable and to develop a long-term Regulatory Impact Review/Final business, a business that sells shark rebuilding schedule for large coastal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/ parts, commercial fishermen, sharks. NMFS intends to implement this RIR/FRFA) may be obtained from the commercial fishermen’s associations, a updated rebuilding schedule through an Highly Migratory Species Management fisheries development foundation, FMP amendment in consultation with Division (SF1), Office of Sustainable individuals, and a shark fishery an Advisory Panel (AP) as required by Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West observer. NMFS also received verbal the amended Magnuson-Stevens Act. At Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, comments on this rule at public that time, NMFS will analyze alternative (301) 713–2347, fax (301) 713–1917. hearings and other public meetings. management measures, such as nursery/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Agency responses to public comments pupping ground closures and minimum Michael Bailey, John D. Kelly or Margo follow. sizes, and may adjust commercial quota B. Schulze, 301–713–2347, FAX 301– levels if alternative management 713–1917. 1. Large Coastal Shark Commercial measures can supplement quotas in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Quota controlling effective fishing mortality. Atlantic shark fishery is managed under NMFS received several hundred Towards this end, NMFS has the FMP prepared by NMFS under comments regarding the large coastal accelerated an ongoing effort to authority of Section 304(g) of the shark commercial quota. In addition to determine the potential effects of these Magnuson-Stevens Fishery numerous individuals, seventy-four alternative management measures on Conservation and Management Act comments from members of Congress, fishing mortality. (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and regional fishery management councils, Comment: NMFS should close the implemented through regulations found states, conservation organizations, a large coastal commercial fishery until at 50 CFR part 678. The current status scientific organization, and recreational there is clear evidence that rebuilding of the commercial and recreational fishing associations support a 50 has been initiated. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16649

Response: NMFS disagrees that a stating: ‘‘Our concern with quota Response: It is NMFS’ practice to fishery closure is necessary to initiate reduction as the sole method of incorporate landings information into rebuilding of large coastal sharks at this achieving the reduction in fishing stock assessments, to the extent time. The 1996 SEW final report mortality is that the population appropriate, once it has been verified for indicates that the rapid rate of decline simulation models are based on data authenticity, and is in a usable format. that characterized the stock in the mid that are inadequate to incorporate the Not all data that exist in raw form can 1980’s has slowed significantly and that benefits of the management measures or should be included in stock there is no statistically significant implemented in the FMP in 1993. These assessments. However, NMFS is aware evidence of further decline since the data are not available because increases that some data may not have been FMP was implemented, indicating that in production since the 1993 FMP have included in the stock assessments the FMP management measures not entered the fishery.’’ because they were unavailable (e.g., implemented have been working. While Response: NMFS believes that there is copies not provided to NMFS, not in it is true that clear evidence of measurable evidence of the effects of electronic form, etc.). To this end, rebuilding is not available, NMFS management since implementation of NMFS intends to work with industry to believes that the final action will reduce the FMP. The 1996 SEW final report recover missing data and use them, if the probability of further declines until states that the rapid rate of decline that appropriate and practicable, in order to alternative management measures are characterized the large coastal shark increase stock assessment accuracy and developed. The 1996 SEW production stocks in the mid 1980’s has slowed precision. model analyses, which are probabilistic significantly. However, no clear Comment: Quota reductions may in nature, also indicate that a 50 percent evidence is available that rebuilding has increase, not decrease, effective fishing reduction in quota may lead to slow begun. The report also states that mortality as well as increase regulatory rebuilding. Additionally, a fishery additional reductions in fishing discards and mortality of sharks that closure would impose substantial mortality would improve the probability cannot be landed during a closed hardship on the commercial fishing of stock increases. The commercial season. Thus National Standard 5, sector and would likely increase fishing quota reduction for large coastal species which requires that ‘‘conservation and pressure on other fishery resources, is intended to be an interim measure management measures shall, where particularly the fully fished small while other management options are practicable, consider efficiency in the coastal and pelagic sharks. examined. utilization of fishery resources,’’ and Comment: NMFS should not reduce Comment: The 1996 SEW analyses National Standard 9, which requires the large coastal shark quota at all. did not account for gear changes made that ‘‘conservation and management Recent increases in some catch per unit by the industry to use lighter leaders measures shall, to the extent practicable, effort indices in addition to significant and smaller hooks that result in minimize bycatch and to the extent such uncertainty in accuracy of data, model increased bite-offs, lowered catches and bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize simulation results, and interpretation of catch rate indices, and smaller size of the mortality of such bycatch,’’ will be assessment results do not warrant fish landed. violated as the shark fishery becomes drastic reductions. NMFS should Response: NMFS is aware that increasingly less efficient and regulatory address alternative management changes in fishing patterns, including discards increase. measures, which might mitigate or gear modifications, can affect stock Response: NMFS believes that the eliminate the need for quota reductions, assessment results but currently is large coastal shark quota reduction will before making significant changes in unable to account for such gear reduce effective fishing mortality, commercial quotas. modifications quantitatively due to lack consistent with the best available Response: NMFS is aware that of detailed data. Nevertheless, this scientific information. NMFS has different interpretations exist regarding change in fishing practice was taken concluded that any decrease in the accuracy and interpretation of the into account by comparing trends in efficiency due to a reduced quota is 1996 SEW stock assessment results. affected and unaffected catch rate outweighed by the benefits of These differences are an important part indices. Gear modifications including preventing further declines while of the scientific process which involves changes like lighter leaders and smaller alternative management measures are rigorous discussion and analysis of all hooks occurred only in the longline developed. In terms of increased interpretations of assessment results. commercial fisheries. However, the regulatory discards and the associated However, NMFS does not believe that 1996 SEW stock assessment for large mortality of sharks during a closed disagreement or uncertainty preclude coastal sharks included many different season, NMFS does not believe that valid management actions. It is true that catch rate indices from several different maintaining commercial quota levels some catch rate indices have shown commercial and recreational fisheries above sustainable levels in order to recent increases and that assessment (see the 1996 SEW final report detailed reduce discards is consistent with the results can be interpreted to support the discussion), including fishery Magnuson-Stevens Act. Alternative status quo for quota levels. However, it independent longline indices which fishing methods are available to reduce should be noted that none of those also show catch per unit effort declines. the unwanted catch of sharks (e.g., gear increases in catch rate indices were Therefore, NMFS believes that declines modifications like lighter leaders, statistically significant because of high in catch rates, as evidenced from all avoiding inshore pupping and nursery variability in the data. Until a long-term catch rates indices analyzed in the stock grounds where juvenile sharks rebuilding schedule which includes assessment, are real. NMFS will congregate, checking and resetting gear alternative management measures can continue to include consideration of frequently if shark catches are high, etc.) be analyzed and developed, NMFS these issues in analyzing and that could reduce regulatory discards. believes that a risk-averse approach is developing a long-term rebuilding plan. At this time, the AA does not have the necessary to reduce the probability of Comment: Significant amounts of data authority to create a bycatch set-aside further declines. on shark landings, particularly data on from the commercial quota for the Comment: The State of North Carolina fin landings, have not been incorporated Atlantic shark fishery. However, as this expressed concern with the proposed 50 in the stock assessments, which may final rule is intended to be effective percent reduction in the quota by substantially bias assessment results. until an FMP amendment can be 16650 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations developed, NMFS may examine the NMFS has attempted to prevent these status of large coastal sharks. However, need to restructure the shark conditions from developing. For NMFS disagrees that action should commercial fishery to create a bycatch example, NMFS implemented a 4,000 lb await a rebuilding schedule to be and discard set-aside to account for this trip limit for large coastal sharks in an implemented in an amendment to the source of mortality. Finally, NMFS has attempt to slow the pace of the fishery; shark FMP. The rebuilding plan proposed regulations to address this trip limit is currently in effect. outlined in the original FMP was overcapitalization of the shark However, individuals must decide for determined to be inadequate to achieve commercial fishery through a limited themselves whether or not it is safe to the goal of rebuilding the large costal access proposal that is intended to help fish, and NMFS encourages fishermen to shark resource to a level consistent with reduce derby fishing conditions and consider safety issues first and foremost MSY (60 FR 21468, May 2, 1995). The thereby, reduce inefficiency in the shark prior to making the decision to 1996 SEW final report indicates that a fishery (61 FR 68202). Some preliminary participate in the fishery. 50 percent reduction in effective fishing comments on this proposed rule, which Comment: One commercial mortality should stabilize the large would include creation of an incidental fishermen’s association commented that coastal shark population near current permit category, also call for an NMFS should follow through on the levels. This action is intended to reduce ‘‘incidental’’ quota or set-aside. 1994 SEW’s recommendation to protect the probability of further declines as the Comment: The State of North Carolina pupping areas and juvenile sharks, rebuilding schedule is developed. was concerned that there may be a rather than halve the quota. conflict with National Standards 4 and Response: NMFS does not have Comment: NMFS has not taken into 6. The state also requested clarification regulatory authority over inshore waters account the impacts of a large coastal of National Standard 10, which requires where most shark nursery/pupping shark quota reduction on shoreside that ‘‘Conservation and management areas are located; however, NMFS has entities, which are primarily small measures shall, to the extent practicable, been actively working with the coastal businesses. Reducing the large coastal promote the safety of human life at sea’’ states to reach agreement on cooperative shark quota will ruin the domestic shark as it relates to the shortened quota efforts to protect these critical nursery/ meat market because the extended coinciding with the state’s winter pupping areas. NMFS has greatly fishery closures and market gluts season. accelerated ongoing research to develop disallow advanced planning required Response: Regarding National a nursery ground index and may use the for shark meat buyers to distribute and Standard 4, the FMP established an information from these research efforts advertise the product. allocation scheme between recreational to develop, as part of the long-term Response: NMFS believes that most and commercial catches, and rebuilding plan, management measures shoreside entities in the shark fishery semiannual commercial quotas allow for with states to close specific areas to process and sell wet and/or dry shark two fishing seasons with equal harvest fishing activity when gravid females fins. Information available to NMFS allocations. The large coastal shark and/or shark pups are present in those indicates that few shoreside entities quota reduction reduces the quota areas. deal exclusively in domestic shark fins. equally for both fishing seasons and the Comment: One commercial Such fin dealers import the majority of recreational bag limits are reduced to fishermen’s association commented that fins from other countries and then re- maintain the FMP’s allocation scheme; foreign catches of large coastal and export them unprocessed or semi- therefore, the final management pelagic sharks must be quantified and processed to the Asian fin market. measures are fair and equitable to all considered in order for stock Accordingly, U.S. shoreside fin dealers fishermen. assessments to include complete and supplement exports with domestic NMFS’ action is consistent with accurate data and be in compliance with shark fins but do not rely on the National Standard 6. NMFS has National Standard 3, which states that domestic market. Because domestic examined the biological and socio- ‘‘to the extent practicable, an individual shark fins make up a very small economic impacts of this final rule in stock of fish shall be managed as a unit percentage of the U.S. fin dealer the accompanying Final Environmental throughout its range, and interrelated product, a large coastal shark domestic Assessment and Regulatory Impact stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit quota reduction would have negligible Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility or in close coordination.’’ impact on such shoreside entities gross Analysis. National Standard 6 requires Response: NMFS has and will revenues. flexibility and the ability to address continue to work closely with fisheries circumstances as they arise; NMFS is scientists and managers from Atlantic On the other hand, there is a limited responding to the most recent stock coastal states, Canada, and Mexico to domestic market for shark meat that assessment. The agency did account for assess the state of shared stocks. NMFS could be negatively impacted by a variations and contingencies by believes that international cooperation reduced supply of product. However, reducing the large coastal commercial and management of shared shark stocks the commercial large coastal shark quota, thereby preventing further is very important to shark conservation fishery has been open for only a few decline while a rebuilding program is and prevention of overfishing. However, months each year such that shark meat developed. Any changed circumstances NMFS believes that domestic action is buyers necessarily have diversified. in the future will be addressed by needed immediately and this interim Additionally, shark meat is not a high NMFS, in consultation with the AP. quota reduction is a risk-averse action, value product and is readily substituted Regarding National Standard 10, based on the best scientific data by other products. Reducing the season, NMFS’ analyses indicate that the winter available, to protect all sharks found in even if by half, should not have a shark fishery for North Carolina ranges U.S. waters, not only shared stocks. substantial impact because of the from October through December and Comment: The lack of a rational already short fishing season, low value that the fishery has not previously been rebuilding schedule should be and volume of shark meat processed, open during these months for that state. addressed before severe, short term and the high degree of diversity in NMFS is aware that derby fishing measures are implemented. shoreside operations. In consultation conditions can develop when quota Response: NMFS agrees that a with an AP, NMFS may develop a reductions are proposed and, within the rebuilding schedule needs to be market analysis for the shark fin constraints of regulatory processes, developed to address the overfished industry which may include an estimate Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16651 of the impacts of regulations on that the OT did not reach consensus Comment: NMFS should implement a processors and society. regarding a commercial quota reduction. commercial quota for small coastal Comment: Numerous commentors The final action is being taken sharks to prevent large increases in were concerned that the final rule is independently by the AA under fishing pressure that may result from inconsistent with National Standard 2, authority of the framework provisions of closure of other fishery resources. which states; ‘‘Conservation and the FMP because no consensus was Response: NMFS agrees. management measures shall be based reached by the OT and NMFS has Comment: NMFS should not upon the best available scientific concluded that action was necessary. implement a commercial quota for small information available.’’ Several NMFS did, however, take into account coastal sharks because they are not fishermen’s associations questioned the the various opinions raised at the OT considered overfished and because the accuracy and reliability of the 1996 meeting. proposed quota is much greater than SEW Report, and stated that the 50% historical landings. quota reduction was not a mandate, or 2. Pelagic Shark Commercial Quota Response: The FMP concluded that even a recommendation of, the SEW. In NMFS received 65 comments small coastal sharks were fully fished, addition, some commentors contended regarding the pelagic shark commercial meaning that fishing mortality levels that the SEW Report did not recommend quota from members of Congress, should not increase or overfishing may a 50% reduction in effective fishing regional fishery management councils, occur. NMFS believes that potential effort through a 50% quota reduction. states, conservation organizations, displacement of vessels and crews from Response: The 1996 Report of the scientific organizations, and recreational the large coastal shark fishery into other SEW is based on a meeting of NMFS fishing associations. Comment: NMFS fisheries, including pelagic and small and non-NMFS scientists. The non- should maintain the current commercial coastal shark fisheries, may result in NMFS scientists included pelagic shark quota. Pelagic sharks are increased fishing mortality on small representatives from two fishery determined to be fully-fished and the coastal sharks. NMFS believes that management councils, two states, a commercial quota, which was implementing the commercial quota fisheries development foundation, established to ensure that the total outlined in the FMP is a preventative industry, and academia. All 1996 SEW allowable catch (TAC) does not exceed measure to ensure that any increases in participants were given the opportunity a level that would preclude maximum fishing mortality do not exceed to comment on drafts of the report. sustainable yield (MSY), should not be allowable levels. However, the final report was written adjusted without new scientific analyses 4. Recreational Bag Limits and edited by NMFS scientists and is and information. not, nor was ever intended to be, a NMFS has received numerous Response: NMFS agrees. consensus document. The 1996 SEW comments concerning recreational bag final report heavily weighs all stock Comment: NMFS should reduce the limits from members of Congress, assessment participants’ views in its pelagic shark commercial quota by 50 regional fishery management councils, conclusions and recommendations. percent because the quota has never states, individual scientists, While different interpretations exist been reached. conservation organizations, recreational regarding the accuracy and implications Response: No change in the fishing associations, one fisheries of the stock assessment results, the 1996 commercial quota for pelagic sharks was development foundation, and party/ SEW final report represents the best proposed in this action. No new charter boat owners. scientific data available to NMFS. The analyses have been presented upon Comment: Recreational bag limits commercial quota reduction is a risk- which to modify MSY or the TAC of should be reduced as they are currently averse action to ensure that allowable pelagic sharks. Accordingly, the excessively high and promote waste. catch levels of Atlantic sharks are estimates of MSY and TAC presented in Response: NMFS agrees, with one consistent with the best available the FMP still constitute the best exception noted below. scientific information until an updated available scientific information. Until Comment: Recreational bag limits rebuilding schedule can be developed. new analyses are presented, adjustments should not be reduced. Comment: One fishermen’s to the pelagic shark quota are not Response: The 1996 SEW final report association commented that the Shark warranted. NMFS intends to amend the determined that large coastal sharks Operations Team (OT) did not consent FMP to address the overfished status of continue to be overfished and that a 50 to a 50% quota reduction, and claims large coastal sharks. At that time, the percent reduction in effective fishing that NMFS apparently selectively pelagic shark quota may be adjusted if mortality should stabilize the stock at consulted outside of the OT meeting new analyses warrant modifications. current levels. Based on this report, which constitutes the best available with certain OT members who support 3. Small Coastal Shark Commercial scientific information, NMFS believes dramatic reductions, which may violate Quota the Federal Advisory Committee Act. that the bag limits, as well as the Response: In the proposed rule (61 FR NMFS received numerous comments commercial quota, should be reduced to 67295, December 20, 1996), the regarding the small coastal shark further protect and conserve the stocks. statement ‘‘Members of the OT were commercial quota from members of Recreational bag limits are reduced consulted and some members have been Congress, regional fishery management within the current allocation scheme instrumental in the formulation of this councils, states, conservation (established in the FMP) between proposed rule; * * *’’ meant that; 1) organizations, scientific organizations, commercial and recreational fishing some OT members agreed with the and recreational fishing associations. interests. Without a reduction in the bag determination of the SEW, and 2) NMFS Several commentors support limit equal to the percentage reduction scientists who are also OT members establishment of the proposed in the commercial quota, the positive have been and will continue to be commercial quota for small coastal benefits of a reduction in effective routinely consulted on an ongoing basis. sharks, while others argued that no fishing mortality in the commercial NMFS did not meet with non-NMFS OT quota was justified or that smaller sector may be negated by increased members except at the public OT commercial quotas for small coastal fishing mortality in the recreational meeting in August 1996. NMFS agrees sharks were more appropriate. sector. 16652 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Given the status of the accelerated efforts to develop a useful Comment: The white shark is small coastal stock and recent landings, shark identification manual and training especially vulnerable to overfishing and adding this group into an aggregate bag for fishermen. since no directed commercial fishery limit is overly restrictive and unfair to exists at this time, prohibited status 5. Prohibited Species party/charterboats. should be afforded this species to Response: The rationale for adding Numerous members of Congress, prevent a directed fishery from the small coastal sharks into an regional fishery management councils, developing. aggregate bag limit is the significant, states, conservation organizations, Response: NMFS agrees. The white widespread misidentification of sharks, scientific associations, and recreational shark is relatively rare in commercial especially juvenile large coastal sharks fishing associations support the species landings data and very little is known identified as small coastal sharks. NMFS prohibitions whereas other recreational of its reproductive biology and believes that adding small coastal sharks fishing associations oppose the potential. Some evidence suggests that to a species aggregate with large coastals prohibitions. Numerous scientists white sharks may practice uterine will reduce fishing mortality on large expressed their concern that a cannibalism, like sand tiger sharks, and coastals and contribute to stock prohibition would adversely affect may be highly susceptible to recovery. However, after further review ongoing research into these five species. overfishing. NMFS believes that the of landings data and consultation with Comment: Some species of sharks are white shark deserves special protection NMFS and non-NMFS scientists, NMFS especially vulnerable to but acknowledges that there is, in parts recognizes that an additional allowance overexploitation and extra protection of their range, an active recreational for Atlantic sharpnose sharks, should be afforded those species in the fishery for the white shark. Therefore, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, would form of directed fishery closures or NMFS removes the white shark from the alleviate some of the impacts on prevention of fishery development. large coastal species group, making it a recreational operations. A separate bag Response: NMFS agrees and has commercially prohibited species, and limit for Atlantic sharpnose is likely to determined that five species of sharks restricts fishing for white sharks to increase fishing mortality on this that are highly susceptible to recreational catch-and-release only. This species as fishing patterns shift away overfishing should be excluded from action will prevent a directed fishery from other species. However, the life directed fishing to prevent overfishing from developing, thereby preventing history of this species and stable and to prevent development of overfishing, while still allowing population trends since the 1970’s commercial and/or recreational traditional recreational fishing to despite considerable bycatch mortality fisheries. The whale shark (Rhincodon continue. Similar to other prohibitions, indicate that Atlantic sharpnose sharks typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus previously issued provisions that allow will not be negatively impacted by a maximus), sand tiger shark (Odontaspis for scientific research activity and separate bag limit. Accordingly, NMFS taurus), bigeye sand tiger shark exempted fishing apply. Additionally, is changing the proposed reduction in (Odontaspis noronhai), and white shark NMFS may consider tagging and bag limits (two sharks per vessel per (Carcharodon carcharias), are removed reporting requirements for the white trip) to the following: Two sharks per from the large coastal species group and shark fishery in the future. Those vessel per trip, for any combination of are reclassified as prohibited species. fishermen who wish to tag white sharks species except Atlantic sharpnose These species are either encountered are encouraged to participate in a sharks, which will have a bag limit of very rarely in commercial shark NMFS-approved tag-and-release two fish per person per trip. fisheries or are not landed because they program. Tags may be obtained from the Comment: Several commentors stated are not marketable. Therefore, this NMFS Cooperative Tagging Program, grouping all shark species into one action is a preventative measure to Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 recreational bag limit is not warranted ensure that overfishing of these species Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL, 33149, given the status of pelagic and small does not occur. In order to continue or the NMFS APEX Predator coastal sharks, the ease of differentiating scientific research on these species, Investigation Cooperative Shark Tagging pelagic sharks from other species, and previously issued provisions that allow Program, 28 Tarzwell Drive, the differences in the fisheries. for scientific research activity and Narragansett, RI, 02882. Response: NMFS agrees that species- exempted fishing apply (61 FR 26435, Comment: Catch-and-release fishing specific management would be a May 28, 1996). for white sharks may cause increased preferred means of managing the fishery 6. White Shark Recreational Catch-and- mortality. given sufficient stock assessment data Response: NMFS is aware that there is Release Only Fishery and accuracy of species identification in limited information regarding post- landings. However, as stated above, Numerous members of Congress, release survival for white sharks and widespread misidentification of sharks regional fishery management councils, that there may be some mortality continues to be a problem that requires states, conservation organizations, associated with a catch-and-release-only attention because of the overfished large scientific associations, and recreational fishery. However, it is unlikely that coastals. Additionally, NMFS believes fishing associations support the mortality would increase from this that potential displacement of vessels proposed prohibitions on directed action because all recreationally caught and crews from the large coastal shark fishing for, landing of, or sale of white white sharks will be required to be fishery into other fisheries, including sharks. Several recreational fishing released, whereas not all are released pelagic and small coastal shark associations and commercial now. Therefore, even with some post- fisheries, warrants adopting a single fishermen’s associations oppose the release mortality, the increased release recreational bag limit for all shark prohibition. One conservation rate should decrease mortality overall. species combined with the exception for organization commented that the catch- Atlantic sharpnose sharks as stated and-release program may cause 7. Prohibition on Filleting at Sea above. NMFS agrees that, for certain increased mortality. Numerous NMFS received general support for species that are readily identifiable, scientists expressed concern that a the prohibition on filleting sharks prior species-specific management measures prohibition on landing would adversely to landing; however, the Office of may be possible in the future. NMFS has affect ongoing research on white sharks. Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16653

Administration (SBA) commented that (SERO), which further supports the Comment: Two conservation costs would increase. multi-species nature of the fleet. Even organizations commented that quota Comment: Prohibiting filleting at sea so, the 2.4 percent who do not hold overruns should be subtracted from the will increase costs to vessel owner/ other SERO permits might hold permits following years’ quotas. operators because they will be required from other offices (e.g., Atlantic tunas) Response: This is not currently within to fillet only once in port. Currently, or may not be active in the shark the authority of the FMP. Current they are allowed to fillet sharks while fishery, although no integrated database regulations allow for the adjustment steaming into port, which saves exists for cross-comparison. Since between quota periods within a single processing time and reduces labor costs. vessels habitually switch to other year. NMFS may investigate the need for Response: NMFS recognizes that costs fisheries as part of the multi-species adjusting quotas from year to year will likely increase somewhat but nature of the fleet, reduction of the time during the FMP amendment process. believes that the benefits of increased spent in the shark fishery will not affect Comment: One fishermen’s species-specific identification and switching cost; switching still occurs association commented that NMFS must verification greatly outweigh those once or twice a year. In addition, since not implement retroactive quota costs. NMFS believes that the implementation of the FMP in 1993, the reductions. prohibition is necessary to aid in fishery has only been open for a short Response: This is not a retroactive identification of landings by dealers period of time annually and NMFS quota reduction. The proposed rule was who must report by species. believes that few, if any, fishermen are published on December 20, 1996. The Additionally, NMFS believes that many exclusively dependent upon income fishing year for the Atlantic shark fishermen currently allow processors to from the large coastal shark fishery. fishery began on January 1, 1997, and fillet their sharks such that any increase Therefore, alternative sources of income the fishery has been ongoing while in costs for the fleet would be have been necessary, either from other NMFS has considered comments on the minimized. NMFS adopts this fisheries or other occupations. While proposed rule. While this action affects prohibition without change. Sharks NMFS agrees with SBA that most shark all landings beginning January 1, 1997, must be landed and brought to the point vessels are considered small businesses, it is reasonable because quotas have of first landing with the flesh attached SBA incorrectly assumes that a been in place since 1993 and fishery and the spinal column present. reduction in large coastal shark quotas participants are cognizant of annual Fishermen may remove the head and will lead to a directly corresponding quota adjustments. Additionally, NMFS fins and eviscerate the catch. reduction in gross ex-vessel revenues of believes that any delay in the fishermen. implementation of the effective date of 8. Species-Specific Identification Comment: The State of Florida and this action will result in the quota being Requirement two conservation organizations exceeded for the first season and NMFS generally received support that requested that NMFS prohibit the possibly for the second season. requiring species-specific identification landing of additional species, namely Other Issues: NMFS was provided of all sharks landed will improve certain rays and sawfish. with additional data and analyses from management. Numerous dealers and Response: NMFS may investigate the a fishermen’s association for further commercial and recreational fishermen need for affording protection to consideration. The submitted data requested information on identification additional species not currently include species composition, nominal of sharks. included in the management unit. catch rate, and standardized abundance index information from research surveys 9. Other comments. Adjustment of the management unit to include additional species would conducted by the Bureau of Commercial Comment: Several commercial shark require an FMP amendment. Fisheries (the precursor to NMFS), the fishermen, persons involved in shark Comment: The State of Georgia Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, processing, commercial fishermen’s requested that NMFS place additional and NMFS during the period 1957– associations, and one legal restrictions on the use of gillnets in the 1996. No conclusions were presented representative of shark fishery interests shark fishery. about the status of sharks. Further, this commented that NMFS’ determination Response: Gear restrictions are not information has not been reviewed or of no significant economic impact was currently within the scope of the analysed by any other scientists so the flawed and vastly underestimated the framework authority under the FMP. scientific reliability of the approaches impact of a 50 percent quota reduction NMFS intends to amend the FMP to taken to developing the depicted trends on all shark fishermen. In addition, the address alternative management in catch rates is unknown. Therefore, it SBA issued a letter to NMFS indicating measures and, at that time, may is inappropriate to use the statistics their disagreement with the examine the possibility of gear presented to modify the conclusions determination. The SBA stated that restrictions. made in the 1996 SEW final report until most, if not all, shark fishermen are Comment: Numerous conservation such analyses are conducted. The small businesses that would suffer a organizations and individuals suggested commentor concludes that the analysis directly corresponding reduction in a 100 lb. minimum size for mako sharks. presented raises questions about the gross revenue from a large coastal shark Response: NMFS has previously reliability of the large coastal shark quota reduction. considered a minimum size for mako stock declines developed in the 1996 Response: No evidence is available to sharks. A minimum size for mako stock assessment. However, the NMFS to support the assumption that sharks was rejected in the FMP because information depicted for the there exists a directed fishery for sharks of inadequate supporting biological standardized abundance index for that consists exclusively of specialist information. No new analyses have been combined catches of sandbar, dusky, shark fishermen who do not harvest any presented to indicate a modification of silky, and blacktip sharks caught in the other species of fish. NMFS’ permit the current management for mako western North Atlantic Ocean indicates database indicates that 97.7 percent of sharks is warranted. NMFS may address a decline of about 80 percent from shark fishers hold permits for other possible use of minimum sizes for this 1986–1996, with each year’s abundance commercial fishing permits from the and other species as part of the long- index being less than the previous year’s Southeast Regional Permit Office term rebuilding plan. abundance index, except in 1992 and 16654 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1994. While these data may raise comments from the public and SBA that requirements are substantially similar questions about the magnitude of indicated that the proposed rule may and require only a modification to fish declines in shark populations, as have a significant economic impact on at different depths. Since vessels estimated by the 1996 SEW final report, a substantial number of small entities. habitually access other fisheries, they do indicate, consistent with the NMFS, in response to the issues raised reduction of the time spent in the shark 1996 SEW final report, a substantial during the comment period, prepared a fishery will not affect switching cost; decline. Indeed, they may represent an Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the switching still occurs once or twice even greater decline than that presented (FRFA) to ensure a thorough analysis of a year. Estimates of additional cost to in the 1996 SEW final report. In any the impacts. access other fisheries are therefore event, NMFS has concluded that they In summary, given the multispecies expected to be minimal. The fact are not sufficient to justify allowing the and multigear nature of the commercial remains that most shark fishermen are fishery to continue without the shark fishery and the existing longline operators and that longlines are recommended reduction in effective management regulations that control the used to target Atlantic tunas, swordfish, fishing mortality. The data presented harvest of sharks, few additional costs and other sharks as well. The other apparently warrant further assessment are expected to be incurred by reducing Atlantic sharks, i.e. small coastals and by the scientific community and should the size of the directed shark fishery pelagic sharks, are subject to quotas be examined for possible additional quota. At present, the shark fishery for which are higher than historical catch modification to future commercial large coastal species lasts only a few levels (the pelagic shark fishery has quotas by the scientific community. months twice a year and most, if not all, never been closed). It should also be participants have already had to noted that, the current trip limit for Changes From the Proposed Rule diversify into other fisheries to maintain large coastal sharks is designed, in part, Recreational Bag Limits their financial viability. Evidence to mitigate the impact of restrictive Based on public comments, one available to NMFS indicates that it is quotas on the industry. Trip limits help management measure has been changed. highly unlikely that vessel operators to extend the season, minimize market NMFS has determined that a separate could survive a fishery that lasts a total glut, and thereby maintain higher bag limit for Atlantic sharpnose sharks of less than four months a year without prices. is warranted for the reason outlined alternative sources of income, either NMFS notes that the Atlantic tunas above. Therefore, the recreational bag from other fisheries or other fishery is open access, and that with the limit is as follows: 2 sharks per vessel occupations. In addition, the permit exception of bluefin tuna, Atlantic tunas per trip, for any combination of species database indicates that 97.7 percent of are not subject to quotas. The Atlantic except Atlantic sharpnose sharks, which permitted shark fishers hold other swordfish fishery is currently open will have a bag limit of 2 fish per person fishing permits from the Southeast access and subject to a quota, although per trip. Regional Permit Office (SERO). Even so, the fishery has not been closed since the the 2.4 percent who do not hold other fall of 1995. There is a proposal being White shark recreational fishery SERO permits might hold permits from developed to limit access to the NMFS has changed tag-and-release to other offices (e.g. Atlantic tunas) or may swordfish fishery, however any current catch-and-release-only recreational not participate in the Atlantic shark participant with a history of swordfish fishing for the white shark. NMFS fishery. NMFS estimates that a directed catch will be allowed to land and sell intends to submit for OMB approval a shark fisher would earn at most $26,426 swordfish under the rule as proposed. new collection-of-information reporting in gross revenues - not income - from Therefore, displaced fishers could requirement to require that recreational the large coastal shark fishery alone. transfer effort to the Atlantic tuna, reef fishing for white sharks operate under a These revenues would be supplemented fish, or coastal pelagic fisheries for king tag-and-release-only program. by income from fishing on other and Spanish mackerel, and potentially Atlantic sharks and other species such to Atlantic swordfish if previous Classification as tunas and swordfish. Additionally, participation can be documented. The AA has determined that this rule nearly all Atlantic shark fishers operate The recreational shark fisheries are is necessary for the conservation and in the multispecies longline fishery exploited primarily by private boat, management of shark resources in the where gear requirements are charter boat, and head boat based fishers Atlantic Ocean and is consistent with substantially similar and require only a although some shore based fishers are the national standards and other modification to fish at different depths. active in the fishery in the Florida Keys. provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Since vessels habitually access other The restriction of 2 shark per vessel per and other applicable law. This rule has fisheries, reduction of the time spent in day could reduce consumer surplus been determined to be not significant for the shark fishery will not affect generated by a directed recreational purposes of E.O. 12866. Copies of the switching cost; the switching still shark fishing trip. However, the costs of EA/RIR/FRFA are available (see occurs once or twice a year. reducing the landings rate should be ADDRESSES). The EA/RIR/FRFA, in Accordingly, a reduction in large coastal mitigated by the 2 Atlantic sharpnose combination with the SEW Report, shark quotas is highly unlikely to lead per person per trip exception as well as constitutes the annual SAFE Report. to a directly-corresponding reduction in alternative directed recreational fishing The Assistant General Counsel for gross ex-vessel revenues of fishers. The trips for other fish species and by catch- Legislation and Regulation of the result is that a reduction in quota and-release fishing. In addition, the Department of Commerce certified at the should have relatively little impact on state territorial seas should remain open proposed rule stage to the Chief Counsel commercial shark fishing firms since the subject to their respective landings for Advocacy of the Small Business season, even if cut by more than half, regulations. This could cause a Administration that the proposed rule would not adversely impact other reallocation of effort from offshore would not have a significant economic harvesting operations that take up the waters to nearshore waters which could impact on a substantial number of small majority of the fishing season. increase fishing pressure on juvenile entities. No Initial Regulatory Flexibility Additionally, nearly all Atlantic shark stocks. However, major changes in net Analysis was prepared. During the commercial fishers operate in the benefits are not expected for comment period, NMFS received multispecies longline fishery where gear recreational fishers. Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 16655

The prohibition of fishing for, landing 1997, approximately 740 metric tons removing under paragraph (1), ‘‘Basking or sale of whale, basking, sand tiger, and dressed weight of large coastal sharks sharks—Cetorhinidae’’, ‘‘Basking shark, bigeye sand tiger sharks will not had been taken, which is 115 percent of Cetorhinus maximus‘‘; ‘‘Sand tiger adversely affect gross revenue because the first semiannual quota of 642 metric sharks—Odontaspididae’’, ‘‘Bigeye sand whale, basking, and bigeye sand tiger tons dressed weight. If this harvest rate tiger, Odontaspis noronhai‘‘, ‘‘Sand sharks are only incidentally continues, it is possible that a tiger, Odontaspis taurus‘‘ and ‘‘Whale encountered in commercial fisheries significant portion or the entire first sharks—Rhincodontidae’’, ‘‘Whale and sand tiger sharks are not a semiannual quota might be taken prior shark, Rhincodon typus‘‘, and by adding marketable species at this time. The to the effective date of this action, if a new paragraph (4) to read as follows: prohibition of fishing for, landing or delayed. Further, the second sale of white sharks will not adversely semiannual quota would have to be § 678.2 Definitions affect gross revenue because they are decreased by the overage in the first * * * * * only incidentally encountered in the semiannual quota, and this could Dress means to remove head, viscera, commercial fishery. Requiring the adversely affect the northern states if and fins, but does not include removal recreational white shark fishery to that overage is significant. If this of the backbone, halving, quartering, or operate under a catch-and-release-only authority results in a closure action for otherwise further reducing the carcass. program may reduce the willingness of the large coastal shark fishery, NMFS * * * * * recreational anglers to pay for a fishing has the ability to rapidly communicate Eviscerate means removal of the trip. The prohibition on filleting of the closure to fishery participants alimentary organs only. sharks at sea will have little economic through its FAX network or NOAA Fillet means to remove slices of fish impact but will increase costs to weather radio. To the extent practicable, flesh, of irregular size and shape, from operators through increased labor to advance notice of such closure will be the carcass by cuts made parallel to the fillet carcasses once in port. provided. backbone. In response to comments, NMFS did Notwithstanding any other provision * * * * * modify the recreational bag limits to of law, no person is required to respond Management Unit * * * allow additional limits for Atlantic to, nor shall any person be subject to a (4) Prohibited species: sharpnose sharks. It was determined penalty for failure to comply with, a Basking sharks - Cetorhinidae that providing this additional allowance collection-of-information subject to the Basking shark - Cetorhinidae would alleviate some of the impacts on requirements of the Paperwork maximus recreational operations while not Reduction Act, unless that collection of Mackerel sharks - Lamnidae negatively impacting the resource. information displays a currently valid White shark - Carcharodon carcharias Sand tiger sharks - Odontaspididae NMFS is aware that there may be OMB Control Number. Bigeye sand tiger - Odontaspis alternative actions that could stabilize This rule contains no new collection noronhai or improve the population status of of information that may be subject to the Sand tiger - Odontaspis taurus sharks. However, the 1996 SEW final Paperwork Reduction Act but refers to report indicated the need for immediate Whale sharks - Rhincodontidae requirements that have been approved Whale shark - Rhincodon typus reductions in effective fishing mortality. by the Office of Management and * * * * * Alternative actions, such as minimum Budget under Control Number 0648- sizes and/or nursery and pupping area 0016, 0648–0013, 0648–0205, 0648– § 678.5 [Amended] closures, were recommended in general 0229, and 0648–0306. NMFS intends to 3. In § 678.5, in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) by the 1996 SEW as mechanisms to submit a tagging reporting requirement implement the immediate reductions in and (B) after ‘‘market category’’ add ‘‘, to OMB for approval. and species,’’. effective fishing mortality required. The prohibitions section has been However, specific area closures or 4. Section 678.7 is revised to read as reordered to group similar or associated follows: minimum sizes were not examined. prohibitions. In addition, paragraphs are Further, implementation of such now designated by numbers for the § 678.7 Prohibitions. alternative actions would require more purposes of clarification. (a) In addition to the general scientific analyses and coordination prohibitions specified in § 620.7 of this List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 678 with Atlantic states and regional fishery chapter, and except as permitted under management councils, which would Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and § 678.29, it is unlawful for any person delay the implementation of fishing recordkeeping requirements. to do any of the following: mortality reductions beyond the Dated: April 1, 1997. (1) Fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or recommendation of immediate action. possess or attempt to fish for, purchase, However, NMFS, consistent with recent Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, trade, barter, or possess the following requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens prohibited species: Act, is establishing an advisory panel National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the Basking sharks-Cetorhinidae that will consider these alternatives and Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus others that could be less burdensome preamble, 50 CFR part 678 is amended Mackerel sharks-Lamnidae and could achieve the appropriate levels as follows: White sharks-Carcharodon carcharias of fishing mortality necessary to rebuild PART 678ÐATLANTIC SHARKS Sand tiger sharks-Odontaspididae the shark resource in the context of the Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis FMP. 1. The authority citation for part 678 noronhai Further, under 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(3), continues to read as follows: Sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus NMFS has determined that there is good Whale sharks-Rhincodontidae cause to waive the 30-day delay in Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Whale shark, Rhincodon typus effective date as such a delay would be 2. In § 678.2, the definitions for (2) Sell shark from the management contrary to the public interest. ‘‘Dress’’, ‘‘Eviscerate’’, and ‘‘Fillet’’ are unit or be exempt from the bag limits Preliminary commercial landings added; and the definition for without a vessel permit as specified in estimates indicate that as of March 15, ‘‘Management Unit’’ is amended by § 678.4(a)(1). 16656 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Purchase, trade, or barter, or specified in § 678.25(a), or sell, trade, or (b) Semiannual. The following attempt to purchase, trade, or barter, a barter, or attempt to sell, trade or barter, commercial quotas apply: shark from the management unit a shark from the management unit, (1) For the period January 1 through without an annual dealer permit, as except as an owner or operator of a June 30: specified in § 678.4(a)(2). vessel with a permit, as specified in (i) Large coastal species—642 metric (4) Falsify information required in § 678.26. tons, dressed weight. § 678.4(b) and (c) on an application for (21) Purchase, trade, or barter, or a permit. attempt to purchase, trade or barter, (ii) Small coastal species—880 metric (5) Fail to display a permit, as shark meat or fins from the management tons, dressed weight. specified in § 678.4(h). unit from an owner or operator of a (iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons, (6) Falsify or fail to provide vessel that does not possess a vessel dressed weight. information required to be maintained, permit, as specified in § 678.26(b); or (2) For the period July 1 through submitted, or reported, as specified in sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, December 31: § 678.5. trade, or barter, a shark from the (i) Large coastal species—642 metric (7) Fail to make a shark available for management unit, except to a permitted inspection or provide data on catch and tons, dressed weight. dealer, as specified in § 678.26(d). (ii) Small coastal species—880 metric effort, as required by § 678.5(d). (22) Sell, purchase, trade, or barter, or tons, dressed weight. (8) Falsify or fail to display and attempt to sell, purchase, trade, or maintain vessel identification, as barter, shark fins that are (iii) Pelagic species—290 metric tons, required by § 678.6. disproportionate to the weight of dressed weight. (9) Falsify or fail to provide requested carcasses landed, as specified in * * * * * information regarding a vessel’s trip, as § 678.26(c). 8. Section 678.29 is added to read as specified in § 678.10(a). (23) Interfere with, obstruct, delay, or (10) Fail to embark an observer on a follows: prevent by any means an investigation, trip when selected, as specified in search, seizure, or disposition of seized § 678.29 Catch-and-release program. § 678.10(b). (11) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, property in connection with (a) Notwithstanding other provisions harass, intimidate, or interfere with a enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens of this part, a person may fish for, but NMFS-approved observer aboard a Act. not retain, white sharks with rod and (24) During a closure for a shark vessel or prohibit or bar by command, reel only under a catch and release species group, retain a shark of that impediment, threat, coercion, or refusal program, provided the person releases species group on board a vessel that has of reasonable assistance, an observer and returns such fish to the sea been issued a permit under § 678.4, from conducting his/her duties aboard a immediately with a minimum of injury. except as provided in § 678.24(a), or vessel. (b) [Reserved] (12) Fail to provide an observer with sell, purchase, trade, or barter or attempt to sell, purchase, trade, or barter a shark [FR Doc. 97–8754 Filed 4–2–97; 8:53 am] the required food, accommodations, BILLING CODE 3510±22±F access, and assistance, as specified in of that species group, as specified in § 678.24. § 678.10(c). (25) Fish for sharks with a drift gillnet (13) Remove the fins from a shark and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE discard the remainder, as specified in that is 2.5 km or more in length or § 678.22 (a)(1). possess a shark aboard a vessel National Oceanic and Atmospheric (14) Possess shark fins, carcasses, or possessing such drift gillnet, as Administration parts on board, or offload shark fins specified in § 678.21. (b) [Reserved] 50 CFR Part 678 from, a fishing vessel, except as 5. In § 678.22, a new paragraph (d) is specified in § 678.22, or possess shark added to read as follows: carcasses or parts on board, or offload [I.D. 031797B] shark fins, carcasses, or parts from, a § 678.22 Harvest limitations. vessel, except as specified in * * * * * Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Large Coastal § 678.22(a)(2) and (3). (d) Filleting. (1) A shark from any of Shark Species (15) Fail to release a shark that will the three management units that is AGENCY: not be retained in the manner specified possessed in the EEZ, or harvested by a National Marine Fisheries in § 678.22(b). vessel that has been issued a permit Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (16) Land, or possess on any trip, pursuant to § 678.4, may not be filleted Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shark in excess of the vessel trip limit, at sea. Sharks may be eviscerated and Commerce. as specified in § 678.22(c)(1). the head and fins may be removed. ACTION: Closure. (17) Transfer a shark at sea, as 6. In § 678.23, paragraphs (b) and (c) specified in §§ 678.22(c)(2) and are revised to read as follows: SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the 678.23(e). commercial fishery for large coastal (18) Fillet a shark at sea, as specified § 678.23 Bag limits. sharks conducted by vessels with a in § 678.22(d), except that sharks may be * * * * * Federal Atlantic shark permit in the eviscerated and the head and fins may (b) Large coastal, small coastal and Western North Atlantic Ocean, be removed. pelagic species, combined—2 per vessel including the Gulf of Mexico and (19) Exceed the bag limits, as per trip. Caribbean Sea. This action is necessary specified in § 678.23 (a) through (c), or (c) Atlantic sharpnose shark—2 per because the semiannual quota of 642 operate a vessel with a shark on board person per trip. metric tons (mt) for the period January in excess of the bag limits, as specified * * * * * 1 through June 30, 1997 has been in § 678.23(d). 7. In § 678.24, paragraph (b) is revised exceeded. (20) Sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to read as follows: to sell, trade, or barter, a shark harvested EFFECTIVE DATE: The closure is effective in the EEZ, except as an owner or § 678.24 Commercial quotas. from 11:30 p.m. local time April 7, operator of a vessel with a permit, as * * * * * 1997, through June 30, 1997.