Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 42285

* * * * * can be found in the preamble of the November 2015, for Amendment 9 to [FR Doc. 2016–15101 Filed 6–28–16; 8:45 am] proposed rule published on May 2, 2013 the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly BILLING CODE 3510–22–P (78 FR 25685). Copies are available from Migratory Species Fishery Management NMFS (see ADDRESSES), or can be Plan (November 24, 2015; 80 FR 73128). viewed electronically at the Federal E- That final rule, among other things, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Rulemaking portal for this action: http:// allows for the at-sea removal of smooth www.regulations.gov. dogfish fins provided that fishing occurs National Oceanic and Atmospheric within 50 nautical miles of shore along II. Major Components of the Final Administration the Atlantic Coast from Maine through Action the east coast of Florida; smooth dogfish 50 CFR Part 600 Retaining a shark fin while discarding fin weight does not exceed 12 percent the shark carcass (shark finning) has [Docket No. 111014628–6513–02] of the carcass weight on board; smooth been prohibited in the United States dogfish make up at least 25 percent of RIN 0648–BB54 since the 2000 Shark Finning the total retained catch, by weight; and Prohibition Act. The 2010 SCA included the fisherman/vessel holds both federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery provisions that amended the Magnuson- and state permits appropriate for the Conservation and Management Act Stevens Fishery Conservation and retention of smooth dogfish. Provisions; Implementation of the Management Act (MSA) to prohibit any This final rule also combines the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 person from: (1) Removing any of the existing §§ 600.1203 and 600.1204 into AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries fins of a shark (including the tail) at sea; one section. The text throughout 50 CFR Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and (2) having custody, control, or part 600, subpart N, is amended to make Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), possession of a fin aboard a fishing it consistent with the provisions of the Commerce. vessel unless it is naturally attached to SCA. the corresponding carcass; (3) The MSA authorizes the Secretary to ACTION: Final rule. transferring a fin from one vessel to regulate fisheries seaward of the inner SUMMARY: This final action updates another vessel at sea, or receiving a fin boundary of the U.S. exclusive agency regulations consistent with in such transfer, unless the fin is economic zone (EEZ), which is defined provisions of the Shark Conservation naturally attached to the corresponding as a line coterminous with the seaward Act of 2010 (SCA) and prohibits any carcass; or (4) landing a fin that is not boundary of each U.S. coastal state. 16 person from removing any of the fins of naturally attached to the corresponding U.S.C. 1802(11). Thus, as noted in the a shark at sea, possessing shark fins on carcass, or landing a shark carcass proposed rule, the SCA provisions board a fishing vessel unless they are without its fins naturally attached. For apply to any person subject to the naturally attached to the corresponding the purpose of the SCA and these jurisdiction of the United States, carcass, transferring or receiving fins regulations, ‘‘naturally attached,’’ with including persons on board U.S. and from one vessel to another at sea unless respect to a shark fin, means to be foreign vessels, engaging in activities the fins are naturally attached to the attached to the corresponding shark prohibited under the statute with corresponding carcass, landing shark carcass through some portion of uncut respect to sharks harvested seaward of fins unless they are naturally attached to skin. the inner boundary of the EEZ. See 78 the corresponding carcass, or landing This action amends NMFS’ FR 25685, 25686 (May 2, 2013). Federal regulations consistent with these shark carcasses without their fins regulations pertaining to the provisions of the SCA. Specifically, the naturally attached. This action amends conservation and management of rule amends regulations at 50 CFR part existing regulations and makes them specific shark fisheries are set forth in 600, subpart N, to prohibit the removal consistent with the SCA. parts 635, 648, and 660 of title 50 of the of shark fins at sea, namely, the Code of Federal Regulations. For DATES: Effective July 29, 2016. possession, transfer and landing of Atlantic highly migratory species ADDRESSES: Copies of the shark fins that are not naturally attached fisheries, as a condition of its Federal Environmental Assessment (EA)/ to the corresponding carcass, and the permit, a vessel’s fishing, catch, and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Final landing of shark carcasses without the gear are subject to federal requirements Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) corresponding fins naturally attached. even when fishing in state waters. See prepared for this action can be obtained In the preamble to the proposed rule, 50 CFR 635.4(a)(10) (noting also that, from: Erin Wilkinson, National Marine NMFS noted that it interprets the when fishing within the waters of a state Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West prohibitions in subpart N as applying to with more restrictive regulations, Highway, Room 13437, Silver Spring sharks, not skates and rays, and persons aboard the vessel must comply MD 20910. An electronic copy of the solicited public comment on whether with those requirements). This rule EA/RIR/FRFA document as well as clarification was needed in the amends 50 CFR part 600, subpart N, and copies of public comments received can regulatory text on this issue. See 78 FR does not supersede or amend any other be viewed at the Federal e-rulemaking 25685, 25686 (May 2, 2013). NMFS federal regulation or requirement related portal: http://www.regulations.gov/ received only one public comment on to the conservation and management of (Docket ID: NOAA–NMFS–2012–0092). this point, which was supportive of this sharks. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin interpretation, and NMFS thus affirms The SCA also amended the High Seas Wilkinson by phone at 301–427–8561, in this final rule that the prohibitions do Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection or by email: [email protected] or not apply to skates and rays. Act, which provides for identification [email protected]. This final rule also updates subpart N and certification of nations to address SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to be consistent with section 103(b) of illegal, unreported, or unregulated the SCA regarding an exception for fishing; bycatch of protected living I. Overview of the Shark Conservation individuals engaged in commercial marine resources; and, as amended by Act fishing for smooth dogfish. the SCA, shark catches. 16 U.S.C. Background information and an Interpretation of that exception was 1826h–1826k. With regard to sharks, the overview of the Shark Conservation Act addressed in a rule finalized in High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM 29JNR1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 42286 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Protection Act provides for the SCA: California, Delaware, Hawaii, of many of the sharks (mainly mako and identification of a nation if its fishing Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, thresher sharks) they harvest, the fins vessels have been engaged during the Oregon, Washington, the must be removed in order to untangle preceding calendar year in fishing Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana the shark from the net. If not allowed to activities or practices in waters beyond Islands, and Guam. The bases for these cut the fins and land the carcass without any national jurisdiction that target or conclusions were that the shark fin laws the fins, they will have to discard the incidentally catch sharks and the nation in those states and territories would animal after it has been untangled, or be has not adopted a regulatory program have minimal impacts on federally in violation of the law. These for sharks that is comparable to the licensed and permitted shark harvesters, commenters requested that they be able United States’, taking into account because the laws did not prohibit to discard the fins at sea and land the different conditions. 16 U.S.C. federally licensed and permitted carcass without the fins. Some also 1826k(a)(2). NMFS published a final fishermen from landing a legally-caught requested an exemption for the rule that amended the High Seas shark with fins naturally attached or California fleet that is similar to the one Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection selling the non-fin parts of the shark, for dogfish where fins landed must be Act regulations, to make them and, based on the scale and nature of less than a given percentage of the total consistent with these provisions of the the shark fisheries in those states and catch landed. SCA, on January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3338). territories, the laws would have Response to topic 1: The SCA does minimal impacts on federal fishermen. not provide an exemption for the shark III. Relationship of Regulations With Copies of letters exchanged between fisheries off California. The only Current State Laws NMFS and applicable states and exemption provided under the statute The MSA provides for Federal territories documenting those pertains to individuals engaged in management of fisheries in the U.S. conclusions may be found on the Office commercial fishing for smooth dogfish exclusive economic zone (16 U.S.C. of Sustainable Fisheries Web site: http:// in certain areas of the Atlantic Ocean. 1812(a)). In § 600.1201(d) of the www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/ See SCA section 103(b). While NMFS proposed rule, NMFS noted that State sca/index.html. Copies of letters may recognizes the nature of the mako and and territorial statutes that address also be requested by contacting NMFS thresher shark fisheries, we presently do shark fins are preempted if they are (See ADDRESSES). Should the facts not have the authority under the SCA or inconsistent with the MSA as amended presented to NMFS change significantly, any other statute to allow fins from by the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, NMFS may re-engage in discussions these sharks to be removed at sea. An regulations under this part, and with the applicable state or territory. exemption for these fisheries would applicable federal fishery management NMFS is currently in discussions with require a statutory change. plans and regulations. This text did not one other territory that passed a shark Topic 2: Many commenters state that specific state laws were in fact fin law, American Samoa. NMFS mentioned their concern about the preempted, and the proposed encourages any state or territory depletion of shark species and the regulations themselves would not have considering shark fin legislation to important role of sharks in ocean preempted any state or territorial laws. reach out to NMFS to discuss such ecology. These commenters expressed NMFS included this text because a legislation, and NMFS will continue to support for shark protection and swift number of states and territories had take appropriate steps, including enactment of this rule. Additional enacted their own laws regarding shark engaging with states as necessary, to comments (over 80) contained similar fins, and NMFS was concerned that support federally licensed and statements and asked for NMFS to some of those laws, which differ from permitted shark harvesters. implement the SCA. state to state, might restrict the Response to topic 2: The SCA and all possession of shark fins in a way that IV. Response to Comments of its requirements have been in effect could conflict with the broader goals of NMFS received over 180,000 public since January 4, 2011. NMFS notes that the MSA as amended by the SCA, and comments on the proposed rule. These this rule updates existing shark finning might therefore be preempted by the comments came from non-governmental regulations at 50 CFR part 600, subpart MSA as amended by the SCA. organizations, members of Congress, N, with regulations containing language NMFS engaged in extensive Fishery Management Councils and that is consistent with the text of the discussions with states and territories Commissions, state governments, SCA. As explained above, the that have existing shark fin laws. During commercial and recreational fishermen, international provisions of the SCA these discussions, the states and and other interested members of the were implemented through a final rule territories all expressed concern over public. Many of the comment letters published on January 16, 2013 (78 FR language in the proposed rule regarding were similar or raised similar issues. 3338), and the smooth dogfish the potential for preemption of state NMFS reviewed and considered all exemption provisions of the SCA were shark fin laws that conflict with the comments during the development of implemented through a final rule SCA. In those discussions, NMFS this final rule. Due to the large volume published on November 24, 2015 (80 FR sought additional information about the of comments received and the 73128). With the publication of this nature and details of the state laws and overlapping nature of many of the final rule, all provisions of the SCA fisheries, economic factors, and the comments, we have not responded to have been incorporated into agency ability of federally-permitted shark each individually, but instead have regulations. fishermen to dispose of legally-landed responded to the major topics addressed Topic 3: A large number of comments shark fins. Following the discussions in the comments. Many comments from states, non-governmental described above and further exchanges expressed support for the rule as written organizations, and the public expressed of information between NMFS and the and have not been summarized below. concern about the preemption language relevant states and territories, NMFS has Topic 1: Several fishermen from in the preamble and regulatory text of determined that the current shark fin California commented that they support the proposed rule, and asked NMFS to laws for these states and territories are the SCA, but that the proposed rule remove the preemption language from consistent with, and therefore are not ignored the details of their shark fishery. the preamble and regulatory text of the preempted by, the MSA as amended by They indicated that due to the large size final rule. Many commenters asked

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM 29JNR1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 42287

NMFS not to preempt state laws through text. Any preemption would stem from individual state laws, and therefore the regulations or suggested that NMFS a conflict between the MSA, as would not be properly addressed here. was attempting to preempt state laws amended by the SCA, and a state law. Topic 6: NMFS received multiple through the regulations. Commenters NMFS has decided to remove comments from seafood processors, expressed that states should have the § 600.1201(d), though, given public seafood associations, dealers and fishery ability to regulate the sale of shark fins comment on and apparent confusion partnerships, Fishery Management within their jurisdictions, and are well regarding the language. Councils, and a scientist that expressed within their rights to do so. Some Topic 4: Many commenters stated that support for the opinion that state laws commenters also stated that NMFS took they believe state shark fin bans and the are preempted if they are inconsistent an improper approach to coordinating SCA can work together, and instead of with the MSA as amended by the SCA, with states that have shark fin preempting state laws, NMFS should with some commenters asserting that legislation. For example, many find a way to collaborate with the this was an accurate representation of commenters felt it was improper to individual states. the Supremacy Clause. These include preemption language in the Response to topic 4: NMFS and the commenters expressed support for proposed rule before understanding the states regularly work together on preemption of state shark fin laws. impacts of that language, indicating fisheries management issues, and will Response to topic 6: As explained in which specific state laws would be continue to do so in the future. As Section III, the MSA authorizes Federal preempted, or discussing the proposed explained in Section III and the fisheries management in the U.S. rule with potentially affected states. In response to topic 3, NMFS engaged in exclusive economic zone. This rule addition, we received a number of extensive discussions with states and itself does not preempt any state laws, comments that were specific to territories that have existing shark fin and any potential preemption would be individual state laws from state laws. NMFS and the states and due to a conflict with the MSA as legislators, attorneys general, and territories identified in Section III have amended by the SCA. As explained governors asserting why their state laws reached agreement that the current above, NMFS has had discussions with did not conflict with the SCA. shark fin laws in those states or certain states and territories with shark Response to topic 3: As explained territories are consistent with, and fin laws and has determined that none above in Section III, and in light of therefore are not preempted by, the of the shark fin laws in those states and Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, which MSA as amended by the SCA. NMFS is territories conflicts with or is preempted calls on Federal agencies to consult with currently in discussions with one other by the MSA as amended by the SCA. potentially affected state and local territory that has passed a shark fin law, Topic 7: Multiple comments governments prior to promulgating a American Samoa. NMFS encourages any mentioned the savings clause in the final rule with federalism implications, state or territory considering shark fin Shark Conservation Act and the NMFS engaged in extensive discussions legislation to reach out to NMFS to exemption for commercial fishermen with states and territories that have discuss such legislation, and NMFS will engaged in commercial fishing for enacted shark fin laws, and is currently continue to take appropriate steps, smooth dogfish. These commenters do in discussions with one other territory including engaging with states as not agree with having an exemption for that has passed a shark fin law, necessary, to support federally licensed smooth dogfish or a ratio set at 12 American Samoa. Based on those and permitted shark harvesters. percent. Only one commenter expressed discussions, and information provided Topic 5: NMFS received multiple support for use of the statutory fin-to- to NMFS by the states and territories, comments from seafood processors, carcass ratio. NMFS and the states and territories seafood associations, Fishery Response to topic 7: The SCA identified in Section III have reached Management Councils, seafood dealers, explicitly provided for a smooth dogfish agreement that the laws in those states fishery partnerships, and an exemption. Eliminating that exemption and territories are not preempted by the environmental organization that felt that would require a statutory change. NMFS MSA as amended by the SCA. those individuals and organizations addressed interpretation of the Comments on the proposed rule from working to seek total bans on shark fin exemption in a separate rulemaking. state legislators, attorneys general, and trade and consumption at the state level The final rule for that action was governors regarding their individual are undermining U.S. efforts to be a published on November 24, 2015 (80 FR state laws are not summarized here, but leader in sustainably-managed shark 73128). were addressed through the discussions fishing. Some of these commenters Topic 8: Many commenters made with individual states and territories. stated that the individual state shark fin general statements about shark fishing NMFS has addressed concerns raised in bans need to cease, as they interfere and shark conservation, including those comments regarding potential with interstate commerce. stating that sharks should not be fished, preemption of individual state laws Response to topic 5: Through this and expressing concern about sharks, urging through exchanges of letters with the other rulemakings referenced above, added conservation mechanisms for individual states and territories that NMFS has incorporated all provisions of sharks, supporting bans on all shark document that the laws are not in the SCA into agency regulations. As fishing, or providing suggestions on conflict with or preempted by the MSA explained above, NMFS has engaged in how they believed NMFS could improve as amended by the SCA, for the reasons discussions with states with shark fin shark management. described in Section III above. The laws and has concluded that they do not Response to topic 8: These comments extent to which any state shark fin law conflict with the MSA as amended by are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, conflicts with and might be preempted the SCA. The SCA supports U.S. efforts which only updates agency regulations by the MSA as amended by the SCA is to be a leader in sustainably-managed consistent with the SCA and doesn’t a fact-specific determination to be made shark fisheries. The issue of interstate address management measures for on a case-by-case basis. commerce is beyond the scope of this specific shark fisheries. NMFS is a As explained above, proposed rulemaking, because this rule is only leader in the sustainable management of § 600.1201(d) did not state that any state updating agency regulations consistent domestic shark fisheries and the global law was in fact preempted, and other with the SCA. Any potential interstate conservation of sharks. Sharks are sections of this rule merely codify SCA commerce issues would be caused by among the ocean’s top predators and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM 29JNR1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES 42288 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

vital to the natural balance of marine (§ 635.30(c)(5)), which was finalized on considering enacting shark fin laws, ecosystems. They are also a valuable November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73128), after NMFS encourages them to reach out to recreational species and food source. To the proposed rule for this rulemaking NMFS to discuss such legislation. help protect these important marine was published. This change was made NMFS will continue to take appropriate species, the United States has some of to ensure that NMFS’ interpretation and steps, including engaging with states as the strongest shark conservation and application of the smooth dogfish necessary, to support federally licensed management measures in the world. exception is consistent across NMFS’ and permitted shark harvesters. NMFS manages the commercial and regulations and to make it easy for the Regulatory Flexibility Act recreational shark fisheries in the reader to find the applicable provisions. Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico and This is not a substantive change from Pursuant to section 604 of the works with U.S. regional fishery the proposed rule, because the language Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS management councils to conserve and codified in § 635.30(c)(5) is consistent has prepared a Final Regulatory sustainably manage sharks in the Pacific with the language originally proposed Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in support Ocean. for § 600.1201(b)(1), and the definition of this action. The FRFA incorporates The U.S. manages shark fisheries of ‘‘Atlantic States’’ (§ 635.2) applicable the Initial Regulatory Flexibility using an adaptive process under the to § 635.30(c)(5) is consistent with the Analysis (IRFA) that was published MSA based on sound science, effective definition of ‘‘State’’ originally proposed with the proposed rule for this action, and enforced management measures, in § 600.1201(b)(2). a summary of the significant issues and collaboration with diverse raised by the public comments in stakeholders, states, and federal VI. Classification response to the IRFA, NMFS’ response partners. Sustainably managed shark Pursuant to section 305(d) of the to those comments, relevant analysis fisheries provide opportunities for both MSA, NMFS has determined that this contained in the action and its commercial and recreational fishermen. final rule is consistent with the Environmental Assessment (EA), and a NMFS also works with international Magnuson-Stevens Fishery summary of the analyses in this rule. organizations to establish global shark Conservation and Management Act and Copies of the analyses, EA, and FRFA conservation and management other applicable law. are available from NMFS (see measures. In addition to prohibiting ADDRESSES). A summary of the FRFA shark finning in the United States, we Executive Order 12866 follows. A description of why this continue to promote our fins-naturally- This final rule has been determined to action was considered, its objectives, attached policy overseas. be not significant for purposes of and the legal basis for this rule is Topic 9: Many commenters Executive Order 12866. contained in the preamble to the interpreted the proposed rule as NMFS proposed rule and is not repeated here. Executive Order 13132 supporting the return of longliners to The rule updates agency regulations Hawaii and urged NMFS to prohibit As explained in Section III and the consistent with provisions of the SCA such activity. response to comments, several states and prohibits any person from removing Response to topic 9: These comments and territories have enacted statutes that any of the fins of a shark at sea, are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. address shark fins. In light of E.O. possessing shark fins on board a fishing This rule only updates agency 13132, and in the interest of working vessel unless they are naturally attached regulations consistent with the SCA, with them, NMFS engaged in to the corresponding carcass, and does not address the longline discussions with states and territories transferring or receiving fins from one fishery in Hawaii. that have existing shark fin laws, and vessel to another at sea unless the fins NMFS and the states and territories are naturally attached to the V. Changes From Proposed Action identified in Section III have reached corresponding carcass, landing shark NMFS made only two changes from agreement that the current shark fin fins unless they are naturally attached to the proposed rule. First, based on laws in those states and territories are the corresponding carcass, or landing NMFS’ discussions with states with consistent with, and therefore are not shark carcasses without their fins shark fin laws and on public comments, preempted by, the MSA as amended by naturally attached. This action amends NMFS has removed preemption the SCA. existing regulations and makes them language in the proposed rule from the The final rule is necessary to update consistent with the SCA. regulatory text of the final rule. NMFS’ regulations to be consistent with No significant issues were raised by Specifically, NMFS removed proposed the SCA, and it does not preempt any the public comments in response to the § 600.1201(d), which stated that State state laws. Any federalism implications IRFA. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy and territorial statutes that address are triggered by the provisions of the of the Small Business Administration shark fins are preempted if they are MSA, as amended by the SCA. The (SBA) did not provide any comments on inconsistent with the MSA as amended extent to which any state shark fin law the IRFA. NMFS received one comment by the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, conflicts with and might be preempted on the proposed rule that suggested that regulations under this part, and by the MSA itself, as amended by the the preemption language would impact applicable federal fishery management SCA, is a fact-specific determination to the commenter’s business. However, as plans and regulations. be made on a case-by-case basis. Thus, explained in section III and the response Second, NMFS revised § 600.1201(b), after considering the public comment on to comment topic 3, any preemption which addresses the exception for and apparent confusion regarding the would stem from a conflict between the individuals engaged in commercial language, NMFS has removed the MSA, as amended by the SCA, and a fishing for smooth dogfish. Specifically, preemption language from the final rule. state law. In any event, NMFS has NMFS combined proposed paragraphs Should the facts presented to NMFS removed the preemption language from (b)(1) and (2) and replaced the proposed regarding any existing state or territory the final rule, and therefore, the language for those paragraphs with a shark fin law change significantly, commenter’s concern has been cross-reference to the relevant paragraph NMFS may re-engage in discussions addressed. in NMFS’ regulations that interprets the with the applicable state or territory. If The FRFA contains new economic smooth dogfish exception any additional states or territories are information that was added to clarify

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM 29JNR1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 42289

information about large mesh and small Dated: June 21, 2016. berth, beach, seawall, or ramp to begin mesh drift gillnet gears in the Pacific. Samuel D. Rauch III, offloading fish. This new information did not change Deputy Assistant Administrator for Naturally attached, with respect to a the finding of no significant economic Regulatory Programs, National Marine shark fin, means attached to the Fisheries Service. impact on small entities. Also, Section corresponding shark carcass through For the reasons set out in the 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to some portion of uncut skin. provide an estimate of the number of preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part small entities to which the rule would 600 as follows: (b) If there is any difference between apply. On June 24, 2014, the Small a definition in this section and in PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS Business Administration (SBA) issued a § 600.10, the definition in this section is ACT PROVISIONS final rule revising the small business the operative definition for the purposes of this subpart. size standards for several industries, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 600 effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647). continues to read as follows: § 600.1203 Prohibitions. The rule increased the size standard for Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. (a) It is unlawful for any person to do, Finfish Fishing from $19.0 to 20.5 1801 et seq. million, Shellfish Fishing from $5.0 to or attempt to do, any of the following: 5.5 million, and Other Marine Fishing ■ 2. Subpart N is revised to read as (1) Remove a fin at sea. follows: from $7.0 to 7.5 million. Id. at 37400. (2) To have custody, control, or NMFS has reviewed the analyses possession of a fin, aboard a fishing prepared for this action in light of the Subpart N—Shark Fin Removal, Possession, Transfer and Landing vessel, unless the fin is naturally new size standards. Under the former, attached. lower size standards, all entities subject Sec. to this action were considered small 600.1200 Purpose and scope. (3) Transfer a fin from one vessel to 600.1201 Relation to other laws. entities, thus they would continue to be another vessel at sea unless the fin is 600.1202 Definitions. naturally attached. considered small entities under the new 600.1203 Prohibitions. standards. NMFS does not believe that (4) Receive a fin in a transfer from one the new size standards affect analyses Subpart N—Shark Fin Removal, vessel to another vessel at sea unless the prepared for this action. Possession, Transfer and Landing fin is naturally attached. No duplicative, overlapping, or (5) Land a fin unless the fin is § 600.1200 Purpose and scope. conflicting Federal rules have been naturally attached. identified. This rule does not establish The regulations in this subpart (6) Land a shark carcass without all of any new reporting or record-keeping implement the Shark Conservation Act its fins naturally attached. requirements. of 2010. (7) Possess, purchase, offer to sell, or One alternative, the status quo, was § 600.1201 Relation to other laws. sell fins or shark carcasses taken, considered for the proposed action. This (a) Regulations pertaining to transferred, landed, or possessed in alternative would maintain the current conservation and management violation of this section. regulations under the Shark Finning (including record keeping and Prohibition Act. Under this alternative, reporting) for certain shark fisheries are (8) When requested, fail to allow an any person may remove and retain on also set forth in parts 635 (for Federal authorized officer or any employee of the vessel fins (including the tail) from Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and NMFS designated by a Regional a shark harvested seaward of the inner Caribbean shark fisheries), 648 (for Administrator, or by the Director of the boundary of the U.S. EEZ; however, the spiny dogfish fisheries), 660 (for Office of Sustainable Fisheries in the corresponding carcass must also be fisheries off West Coast states), and 665 case of the Atlantic Highly Migratory retained on board the vessel. It would be (for fisheries in the western Pacific) of Species, access to or inspection or a rebuttable presumption that shark fins this chapter. copying of any records pertaining to the landed by a U.S. or foreign fishing (b) This subpart does not apply to an landing, sale, transfer, purchase, or vessel were taken, held, or landed in individual engaged in commercial other disposition of fins or shark violation of the regulations if the total fishing for smooth dogfish (Mustelus carcasses. canis) when the conditions in weight of the shark fins landed exceeds (b) For purposes of this section, it is § 635.30(c)(5) have been met. 5 percent of the total dressed weight of a rebuttable presumption that: shark carcasses on board or landed from (c) This subpart does not supersede the fishing vessel. NMFS rejected this state laws or regulations governing (1) If a fin is found aboard a vessel, alternative because it would not comply conservation and management of state other than a fishing vessel, without with the requirements of the SCA. No shark fisheries in state waters. being naturally attached, such fin was transferred in violation of this section. other alternatives meet the statutory § 600.1202 Definitions. requirements, and so none were (2) If, after landing, the total weight of (a) In addition to the definitions in the considered. Magnuson-Stevens Act and in § 600.10, fins landed from any vessel exceeds five percent of the total weight of shark List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 the terms used in this subpart have the following meanings: carcasses landed, such fins were taken, Administrative practice and Fin means any of the fins of a shark held, or landed in violation of this procedure, Confidential business (including the tail) or a portion thereof. section. information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing Land or landing means offloading [FR Doc. 2016–15413 Filed 6–28–16; 8:45 am] vessels, Foreign relations, fish, or causing fish to be offloaded, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, from a fishing vessel, either to another Reporting and recordkeeping vessel or to a shore side location or requirements, Statistics. facility, or arriving in port, or at a dock,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 28, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM 29JNR1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES