Atlantic Shark Fisheries; Quotas, Bag Limits, Prohibitions, and Requirements

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement certain measures

authorized by the Fishery Management Plan for Sharks of the Atlantic

Ocean (FMP). These measures: Reduce commercial quotas for large coastal

sharks, reduce recreational bag limits; establish a commercial quota

for small coastal sharks; prohibit directed commercial fishing for,

landing of, or sale of five species of sharks; establish a recreational

catch-and-release only fishery for white sharks; prohibit filleting of

sharks at sea; and refers to the requirement for species-specific

identification by all owners or operators, dealers, and tournament

operators of all sharks landed under the framework provisions of the

FMP. This rule is intended to reduce effective fishing mortality,

stabilize the large coastal shark population, facilitate enforcement,

and improve management of Atlantic shark resources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment and Regulatory

Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) may

be obtained from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division

(SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway,

Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 713-2347, fax (301) 713-1917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Michael Bailey, John D. Kelly or

Margo B. Schulze, 301-713-2347, FAX 301-713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under

the FMP prepared by NMFS under authority of Section 304(g) of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-

Stevens Act) and implemented through regulations found at 50 CFR part

678. The current status of the commercial and recreational shark

fisheries, the status of the shark stocks, the proposed management

measures, and the anticipated effects of the proposed management

measures were discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR

67295, December 20, 1996) and are not repeated here.

The framework provisions of the FMP allow the Assistant

Administrator (AA) to make adjustments in specified management measures

in order to achieve the FMP's objectives of preventing overfishing, and

increasing the benefits of shark resources to the nation while reducing

waste. This action is being taken by the AA under authority of the

framework provisions of the FMP and consistent with the provisions of

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Comments and Responses

Comments were requested for the measures in the proposed rule. The

comment period on the proposed rule was originally scheduled to end on

January 21, 1997. Four public hearings were held on the proposed rule.

Due to scheduling conflicts for the final hearing, the public comment

period was extended until January 24, 1997 (62 FR 1872, January 14,

1997). Based on public request, the comment period was again extended

until February 7, 1997 (62 FR 4239, January 29, 1997), to allow for

additional public input.

NMFS received more than 600 written comments from members of

Congress, regional fishery management councils, states, the U.S. Coast

Guard, conservation organizations, a scientific organization,

scientists from four universities, scientists from a marine laboratory,

recreational fishing associations, marine oriented publications,

recreational fishermen involved in the party/charter boat business, a

business that sells shark parts, commercial fishermen, commercial

fishermen's associations, a fisheries development foundation,

individuals, and a shark fishery observer. NMFS also received verbal

comments on this rule at public hearings and other public meetings.

Agency responses to public comments follow.

1. Large Coastal Shark Commercial Quota

NMFS received several hundred comments regarding the large coastal

shark commercial quota. In addition to numerous individuals, seventy-

four comments from members of Congress, regional fishery management

councils, states, conservation organizations, a scientific

organization, and recreational fishing associations support a 50

percent or higher commercial quota reduction for large coastal sharks

as a minimum measure to rebuild the large coastal shark population.

Other commentors, including one state and several commercial

fishermen's associations, questioned the effectiveness of the quota

reduction and/or strenuously opposed the quota reduction and stated

that the scientific data, upon which the 1996 Stock Evaluation Workshop

(SEW) final report is based, are incomplete, flawed, and/or biased.

Comment: Stock assessment results indicate that large coastal

sharks remain overfished and that rebuilding has not begun. Demographic

analyses show that effective fishing mortality needs to be halved in

order for large coastal sharks to recover. NMFS needs to take action

immediately and reduce the commercial quota for large coastal sharks by

50 percent at a minimum.

Response: NMFS agrees that the 1996 SEW final report indicates that

large coastal sharks remain overfished and that a risk-averse approach

is needed. A 50 percent reduction in commercial quota for large

coastals is an approximation to halving current effective fishing

mortality. Production model analyses indicate that a 50 percent

reduction in effective fishing mortality is likely to maintain large

coastal sharks near 1996 levels. This will ensure that allowable

catches of large coastals are consistent with the best available

scientific information and reduce the probability of further declines

until a new rebuilding schedule can be developed. The final action is

intended as an interim measure because NMFS intends to update the

scientific information to the extent practicable and to develop a long-

term rebuilding schedule for large coastal sharks. NMFS intends to

implement this updated rebuilding schedule through an FMP amendment in

consultation with an Advisory Panel (AP) as required by the amended

Magnuson-Stevens Act. At that time, NMFS will analyze alternative

management measures, such as nursery/pupping ground closures and

minimum sizes, and may adjust commercial quota levels if alternative

management measures can supplement quotas in controlling effective

fishing mortality. Towards this end, NMFS has accelerated an ongoing

effort to determine the potential effects of these alternative

management measures on fishing mortality.

Comment: NMFS should close the large coastal commercial fishery

until there is clear evidence that rebuilding has been initiated.

[[Page 16649]]

Response: NMFS disagrees that a fishery closure is necessary to

initiate rebuilding of large coastal sharks at this time. The 1996 SEW

final report indicates that the rapid rate of decline that

characterized the stock in the mid 1980's has slowed significantly and

that there is no statistically significant evidence of further decline

since the FMP was implemented, indicating that the FMP management

measures implemented have been working. While it is true that clear

evidence of rebuilding is not available, NMFS believes that the final

action will reduce the probability of further declines until

alternative management measures are developed. The 1996 SEW production

model analyses, which are probabilistic in nature, also indicate that a

50 percent reduction in quota may lead to slow rebuilding.

Additionally, a fishery closure would impose substantial hardship on

the commercial fishing sector and would likely increase fishing

pressure on other fishery resources, particularly the fully fished

small coastal and pelagic sharks.

Comment: NMFS should not reduce the large coastal shark quota at

all. Recent increases in some catch per unit effort indices in addition

to significant uncertainty in accuracy of data, model simulation

results, and interpretation of assessment results do not warrant

drastic reductions. NMFS should address alternative management

measures, which might mitigate or eliminate the need for quota

reductions, before making significant changes in commercial quotas.

Response: NMFS is aware that different interpretations exist

regarding the accuracy and interpretation of the 1996 SEW stock

assessment results. These differences are an important part of the

scientific process which involves rigorous discussion and analysis of

all interpretations of assessment results. However, NMFS does not

believe that disagreement or uncertainty preclude valid management

actions. It is true that some catch rate indices have shown recent

increases and that assessment results can be interpreted to support the

status quo for quota levels. However, it should be noted that none of

those increases in catch rate indices were statistically significant

because of high variability in the data. Until a long-term rebuilding

schedule which includes alternative management measures can be analyzed

and developed, NMFS believes that a risk-averse approach is necessary

to reduce the probability of further declines.

Comment: The State of North Carolina expressed concern with the

proposed 50 percent reduction in the quota by stating: ``Our concern

with quota reduction as the sole method of achieving the reduction in

fishing mortality is that the population simulation models are based on

data that are inadequate to incorporate the benefits of the management

measures implemented in the FMP in 1993. These data are not available

because increases in production since the 1993 FMP have not entered the

fishery.''

Response: NMFS believes that there is measurable evidence of the

effects of management since implementation of the FMP. The 1996 SEW

final report states that the rapid rate of decline that characterized

the large coastal shark stocks in the mid 1980's has slowed

significantly. However, no clear evidence is available that rebuilding

has begun. The report also states that additional reductions in fishing

mortality would improve the probability of stock increases. The

commercial quota reduction for large coastal species is intended to be

an interim measure while other management options are examined.

Comment: The 1996 SEW analyses did not account for gear changes

made by the industry to use lighter leaders and smaller hooks that

result in increased bite-offs, lowered catches and catch rate indices,

and smaller size of fish landed.

Response: NMFS is aware that changes in fishing patterns, including

gear modifications, can affect stock assessment results but currently

is unable to account for such gear modifications quantitatively due to

lack of detailed data. Nevertheless, this change in fishing practice

was taken into account by comparing trends in affected and unaffected

catch rate indices. Gear modifications including changes like lighter

leaders and smaller hooks occurred only in the longline commercial

fisheries. However, the 1996 SEW stock assessment for large coastal

sharks included many different catch rate indices from several

different commercial and recreational fisheries (see the 1996 SEW final

report detailed discussion), including fishery independent longline

indices which also show catch per unit effort declines. Therefore, NMFS

believes that declines in catch rates, as evidenced from all catch

rates indices analyzed in the stock assessment, are real. NMFS will

continue to include consideration of these issues in analyzing and

developing a long-term rebuilding plan.

Comment: Significant amounts of data on shark landings,

particularly data on fin landings, have not been incorporated in the

stock assessments, which may substantially bias assessment results.

Response: It is NMFS' practice to incorporate landings information

into stock assessments, to the extent appropriate, once it has been

verified for authenticity, and is in a usable format. Not all data that

exist in raw form can or should be included in stock assessments.

However, NMFS is aware that some data may not have been included in the

stock assessments because they were unavailable (e.g., copies not

provided to NMFS, not in electronic form, etc.). To this end, NMFS

intends to work with industry to recover missing data and use them, if

appropriate and practicable, in order to increase stock assessment

accuracy and precision.

Comment: Quota reductions may increase, not decrease, effective

fishing mortality as well as increase regulatory discards and mortality

of sharks that cannot be landed during a closed season. Thus National

Standard 5, which requires that ``conservation and management measures

shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of

fishery resources,'' and National Standard 9, which requires that

``conservation and management measures shall, to the extent

practicable, minimize bycatch and to the extent such bycatch cannot be

avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch,'' will be violated as

the shark fishery becomes increasingly less efficient and regulatory

discards increase.

Response: NMFS believes that the large coastal shark quota

reduction will reduce effective fishing mortality, consistent with the

best available scientific information. NMFS has concluded that any

decrease in efficiency due to a reduced quota is outweighed by the

benefits of preventing further declines while alternative management

measures are developed. In terms of increased regulatory discards and

the associated mortality of sharks during a closed season, NMFS does

not believe that maintaining commercial quota levels above sustainable

levels in order to reduce discards is consistent with the Magnuson-

Stevens Act. Alternative fishing methods are available to reduce the

unwanted catch of sharks (e.g., gear modifications like lighter

leaders, avoiding inshore pupping and nursery grounds where juvenile

sharks congregate, checking and resetting gear frequently if shark

catches are high, etc.) that could reduce regulatory discards. At this

time, the AA does not have the authority to create a bycatch set-aside

from the commercial quota for the Atlantic shark fishery. However, as

this final rule is intended to be effective until an FMP amendment can

be

[[Page 16650]]

developed, NMFS may examine the need to restructure the shark

commercial fishery to create a bycatch and discard set-aside to account

for this source of mortality. Finally, NMFS has proposed regulations to

address overcapitalization of the shark commercial fishery through a

limited access proposal that is intended to help reduce derby fishing

conditions and thereby, reduce inefficiency in the shark fishery (61 FR

68202). Some preliminary comments on this proposed rule, which would

include creation of an incidental permit category, also call for an

``incidental'' quota or set-aside.

Comment: The State of North Carolina was concerned that there may

be a conflict with National Standards 4 and 6. The state also requested

clarification of National Standard 10, which requires that

``Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent

practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea'' as it relates to

the shortened quota coinciding with the state's winter season.

Response: Regarding National Standard 4, the FMP established an

allocation scheme between recreational and commercial catches, and

semiannual commercial quotas allow for two fishing seasons with equal

harvest allocations. The large coastal shark quota reduction reduces

the quota equally for both fishing seasons and the recreational bag

limits are reduced to maintain the FMP's allocation scheme; therefore,

the final management measures are fair and equitable to all fishermen.

NMFS' action is consistent with National Standard 6. NMFS has

examined the biological and socio-economic impacts of this final rule

in the accompanying Final Environmental Assessment and Regulatory

Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. National Standard

6 requires flexibility and the ability to address circumstances as they

arise; NMFS is responding to the most recent stock assessment. The

agency did account for variations and contingencies by reducing the

large coastal commercial quota, thereby preventing further decline

while a rebuilding program is developed. Any changed circumstances in

the future will be addressed by NMFS, in consultation with the AP.

Regarding National Standard 10, NMFS' analyses indicate that the

winter shark fishery for North Carolina ranges from October through

December and that the fishery has not previously been open during these

months for that state. NMFS is aware that derby fishing conditions can

develop when quota reductions are proposed and, within the constraints

of regulatory processes, NMFS has attempted to prevent these conditions

from developing. For example, NMFS implemented a 4,000 lb trip limit

for large coastal sharks in an attempt to slow the pace of the fishery;

this trip limit is currently in effect. However, individuals must

decide for themselves whether or not it is safe to fish, and NMFS

encourages fishermen to consider safety issues first and foremost prior

to making the decision to participate in the fishery.

Comment: One commercial fishermen's association commented that NMFS

should follow through on the 1994 SEW's recommendation to protect

pupping areas and juvenile sharks, rather than halve the quota.

Response: NMFS does not have regulatory authority over inshore

waters where most shark nursery/pupping areas are located; however,

NMFS has been actively working with the coastal states to reach

agreement on cooperative efforts to protect these critical nursery/

pupping areas. NMFS has greatly accelerated ongoing research to develop

a nursery ground index and may use the information from these research

efforts to develop, as part of the long-term rebuilding plan,

management measures with states to close specific areas to fishing

activity when gravid females and/or shark pups are present in those

areas.

Comment: One commercial fishermen's association commented that

foreign catches of large coastal and pelagic sharks must be quantified

and considered in order for stock assessments to include complete and

accurate data and be in compliance with National Standard 3, which

states that ``to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish

shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated

stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.''

Response: NMFS has and will continue to work closely with fisheries

scientists and managers from Atlantic coastal states, Canada, and

Mexico to assess the state of shared stocks. NMFS believes that

international cooperation and management of shared shark stocks is very

important to shark conservation and prevention of overfishing. However,

NMFS believes that domestic action is needed immediately and this

interim quota reduction is a risk-averse action, based on the best

scientific data available, to protect all sharks found in U.S. waters,

not only shared stocks.

Comment: The lack of a rational rebuilding schedule should be

addressed before severe, short term measures are implemented.

Response: NMFS agrees that a rebuilding schedule needs to be

developed to address the overfished status of large coastal sharks.

However, NMFS disagrees that action should await a rebuilding schedule

to be implemented in an amendment to the shark FMP. The rebuilding plan

outlined in the original FMP was determined to be inadequate to achieve

the goal of rebuilding the large costal shark resource to a level

consistent with MSY (60 FR 21468, May 2, 1995). The 1996 SEW final

report indicates that a 50 percent reduction in effective fishing

mortality should stabilize the large coastal shark population near

current levels. This action is intended to reduce the probability of

further declines as the rebuilding schedule is developed.

Comment: NMFS has not taken into account the impacts of a large

coastal shark quota reduction on shoreside entities, which are

primarily small businesses. Reducing the large coastal shark quota will

ruin the domestic shark meat market because the extended fishery

closures and market gluts disallow advanced planning required for shark

meat buyers to distribute and advertise the product.

Response: NMFS believes that most shoreside entities in the shark

fishery process and sell wet and/or dry shark fins. Information

available to NMFS indicates that few shoreside entities deal

exclusively in domestic shark fins. Such fin dealers import the

majority of fins from other countries and then re-export them

unprocessed or semi-processed to the Asian fin market. Accordingly,

U.S. shoreside fin dealers supplement exports with domestic shark fins

but do not rely on the domestic market. Because domestic shark fins

make up a very small percentage of the U.S. fin dealer product, a large

coastal shark domestic quota reduction would have negligible impact on

such shoreside entities gross revenues.

On the other hand, there is a limited domestic market for shark

meat that could be negatively impacted by a reduced supply of product.

However, the commercial large coastal shark fishery has been open for

only a few months each year such that shark meat buyers necessarily

have diversified. Additionally, shark meat is not a high value product

and is readily substituted by other products. Reducing the season, even

if by half, should not have a substantial impact because of the already

short fishing season, low value and volume of shark meat processed, and

the high degree of diversity in shoreside operations. In consultation

with an AP, NMFS may develop a market analysis for the shark fin

industry which may include an estimate

[[Page 16651]]

of the impacts of regulations on processors and society.

Comment: Numerous commentors were concerned that the final rule is

inconsistent with National Standard 2, which states; ``Conservation and

management measures shall be based upon the best available scientific

information available.'' Several fishermen's associations questioned

the accuracy and reliability of the 1996 SEW Report, and stated that

the 50% quota reduction was not a mandate, or even a recommendation of,

the SEW. In addition, some commentors contended that the SEW Report did

not recommend a 50% reduction in effective fishing effort through a 50%

quota reduction.

Response: The 1996 Report of the SEW is based on a meeting of NMFS

and non-NMFS scientists. The non-NMFS scientists included

representatives from two fishery management councils, two states, a

fisheries development foundation, industry, and academia. All 1996 SEW

participants were given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the

report. However, the final report was written and edited by NMFS

scientists and is not, nor was ever intended to be, a consensus

document. The 1996 SEW final report heavily weighs all stock assessment

participants' views in its conclusions and recommendations. While

different interpretations exist regarding the accuracy and implications

of the stock assessment results, the 1996 SEW final report represents

the best scientific data available to NMFS. The commercial quota

reduction is a risk-averse action to ensure that allowable catch levels

of Atlantic sharks are consistent with the best available scientific

information until an updated rebuilding schedule can be developed.

Comment: One fishermen's association commented that the Shark

Operations Team (OT) did not consent to a 50% quota reduction, and

claims that NMFS apparently selectively consulted outside of the OT

meeting with certain OT members who support dramatic reductions, which

may violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Response: In the proposed rule (61 FR 67295, December 20, 1996),

the statement ``Members of the OT were consulted and some members have

been instrumental in the formulation of this proposed rule; * * *''

meant that; 1) some OT members agreed with the determination of the

SEW, and 2) NMFS scientists who are also OT members have been and will

continue to be routinely consulted on an ongoing basis. NMFS did not

meet with non-NMFS OT members except at the public OT meeting in August

1996. NMFS agrees that the OT did not reach consensus regarding a

commercial quota reduction. The final action is being taken

independently by the AA under authority of the framework provisions of

the FMP because no consensus was reached by the OT and NMFS has

concluded that action was necessary. NMFS did, however, take into

account the various opinions raised at the OT meeting.

2. Pelagic Shark Commercial Quota

NMFS received 65 comments regarding the pelagic shark commercial

quota from members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,

states, conservation organizations, scientific organizations, and

recreational fishing associations. Comment: NMFS should maintain the

current commercial pelagic shark quota. Pelagic sharks are determined

to be fully-fished and the commercial quota, which was established to

ensure that the total allowable catch (TAC) does not exceed a level

that would preclude maximum sustainable yield (MSY), should not be

adjusted without new scientific analyses and information.

Response: NMFS agrees.

Comment: NMFS should reduce the pelagic shark commercial quota by

50 percent because the quota has never been reached.

Response: No change in the commercial quota for pelagic sharks was

proposed in this action. No new analyses have been presented upon which

to modify MSY or the TAC of pelagic sharks. Accordingly, the estimates

of MSY and TAC presented in the FMP still constitute the best available

scientific information. Until new analyses are presented, adjustments

to the pelagic shark quota are not warranted. NMFS intends to amend the

FMP to address the overfished status of large coastal sharks. At that

time, the pelagic shark quota may be adjusted if new analyses warrant

modifications.

3. Small Coastal Shark Commercial Quota

NMFS received numerous comments regarding the small coastal shark

commercial quota from members of Congress, regional fishery management

councils, states, conservation organizations, scientific organizations,

and recreational fishing associations. Several commentors support

establishment of the proposed commercial quota for small coastal

sharks, while others argued that no quota was justified or that smaller

commercial quotas for small coastal sharks were more appropriate.

Comment: NMFS should implement a commercial quota for small coastal

sharks to prevent large increases in fishing pressure that may result

from closure of other fishery resources.

Response: NMFS agrees.

Comment: NMFS should not implement a commercial quota for small

coastal sharks because they are not considered overfished and because

the proposed quota is much greater than historical landings.

Response: The FMP concluded that small coastal sharks were fully

fished, meaning that fishing mortality levels should not increase or

overfishing may occur. NMFS believes that potential displacement of

vessels and crews from the large coastal shark fishery into other

fisheries, including pelagic and small coastal shark fisheries, may

result in increased fishing mortality on small coastal sharks. NMFS

believes that implementing the commercial quota outlined in the FMP is

a preventative measure to ensure that any increases in fishing

mortality do not exceed allowable levels.

4. Recreational Bag Limits

NMFS has received numerous comments concerning recreational bag

limits from members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,

states, individual scientists, conservation organizations, recreational

fishing associations, one fisheries development foundation, and party/

charter boat owners.

Comment: Recreational bag limits should be reduced as they are

currently excessively high and promote waste.

Response: NMFS agrees, with one exception noted below.

Comment: Recreational bag limits should not be reduced.

Response: The 1996 SEW final report determined that large coastal

sharks continue to be overfished and that a 50 percent reduction in

effective fishing mortality should stabilize the stock at current

levels. Based on this report, which constitutes the best available

scientific information, NMFS believes that the bag limits, as well as

the commercial quota, should be reduced to further protect and conserve

the stocks. Recreational bag limits are reduced within the current

allocation scheme (established in the FMP) between commercial and

recreational fishing interests. Without a reduction in the bag limit

equal to the percentage reduction in the commercial quota, the positive

benefits of a reduction in effective fishing mortality in the

commercial sector may be negated by increased fishing mortality in the

recreational sector.

[[Page 16652]]

Comment: Given the status of the small coastal stock and recent

landings, adding this group into an aggregate bag limit is overly

restrictive and unfair to party/charterboats.

Response: The rationale for adding the small coastal sharks into an

aggregate bag limit is the significant, widespread misidentification of

sharks, especially juvenile large coastal sharks identified as small

coastal sharks. NMFS believes that adding small coastal sharks to a

species aggregate with large coastals will reduce fishing mortality on

large coastals and contribute to stock recovery. However, after further

review of landings data and consultation with NMFS and non-NMFS

scientists, NMFS recognizes that an additional allowance for Atlantic

sharpnose sharks, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, would alleviate some of

the impacts on recreational operations. A separate bag limit for

Atlantic sharpnose is likely to increase fishing mortality on this

species as fishing patterns shift away from other species. However, the

life history of this species and stable population trends since the

1970's despite considerable bycatch mortality indicate that Atlantic

sharpnose sharks will not be negatively impacted by a separate bag

limit. Accordingly, NMFS is changing the proposed reduction in bag

limits (two sharks per vessel per trip) to the following: Two sharks

per vessel per trip, for any combination of species except Atlantic

sharpnose sharks, which will have a bag limit of two fish per person

per trip.

Comment: Several commentors stated grouping all shark species into

one recreational bag limit is not warranted given the status of pelagic

and small coastal sharks, the ease of differentiating pelagic sharks

from other species, and the differences in the fisheries.

Response: NMFS agrees that species-specific management would be a

preferred means of managing the fishery given sufficient stock

assessment data and accuracy of species identification in landings.

However, as stated above, widespread misidentification of sharks

continues to be a problem that requires attention because of the

overfished large coastals. Additionally, NMFS believes that potential

displacement of vessels and crews from the large coastal shark fishery

into other fisheries, including pelagic and small coastal shark

fisheries, warrants adopting a single recreational bag limit for all

shark species combined with the exception for Atlantic sharpnose sharks

as stated above. NMFS agrees that, for certain species that are readily

identifiable, species-specific management measures may be possible in

the future. NMFS has accelerated efforts to develop a useful shark

identification manual and training for fishermen.

5. Prohibited Species

Numerous members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,

states, conservation organizations, scientific associations, and

recreational fishing associations support the species prohibitions

whereas other recreational fishing associations oppose the

prohibitions. Numerous scientists expressed their concern that a

prohibition would adversely affect ongoing research into these five

species.

Comment: Some species of sharks are especially vulnerable to

overexploitation and extra protection should be afforded those species

in the form of directed fishery closures or prevention of fishery

development.

Response: NMFS agrees and has determined that five species of

sharks that are highly susceptible to overfishing should be excluded

from directed fishing to prevent overfishing and to prevent development

of commercial and/or recreational fisheries. The whale shark (Rhincodon

typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), sand tiger shark

(Odontaspis taurus), bigeye sand tiger shark (Odontaspis noronhai), and

white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), are removed from the large

coastal species group and are reclassified as prohibited species. These

species are either encountered very rarely in commercial shark

fisheries or are not landed because they are not marketable. Therefore,

this action is a preventative measure to ensure that overfishing of

these species does not occur. In order to continue scientific research

on these species, previously issued provisions that allow for

scientific research activity and exempted fishing apply (61 FR 26435,

May 28, 1996).

6. White Shark Recreational Catch-and-Release Only Fishery

Numerous members of Congress, regional fishery management councils,

states, conservation organizations, scientific associations, and

recreational fishing associations support the proposed prohibitions on

directed fishing for, landing of, or sale of white sharks. Several

recreational fishing associations and commercial fishermen's

associations oppose the prohibition. One conservation organization

commented that the catch-and-release program may cause increased

mortality. Numerous scientists expressed concern that a prohibition on

landing would adversely affect ongoing research on white sharks.

Comment: The white shark is especially vulnerable to overfishing

and since no directed commercial fishery exists at this time,

prohibited status should be afforded this species to prevent a directed

fishery from developing.

Response: NMFS agrees. The white shark is relatively rare in

commercial landings data and very little is known of its reproductive

biology and potential. Some evidence suggests that white sharks may

practice uterine cannibalism, like sand tiger sharks, and may be highly

susceptible to overfishing. NMFS believes that the white shark deserves

special protection but acknowledges that there is, in parts of their

range, an active recreational fishery for the white shark. Therefore,

NMFS removes the white shark from the large coastal species group,

making it a commercially prohibited species, and restricts fishing for

white sharks to recreational catch-and-release only. This action will

prevent a directed fishery from developing, thereby preventing

overfishing, while still allowing traditional recreational fishing to

continue. Similar to other prohibitions, previously issued provisions

that allow for scientific research activity and exempted fishing apply.

Additionally, NMFS may consider tagging and reporting requirements for

the white shark fishery in the future. Those fishermen who wish to tag

white sharks are encouraged to participate in a NMFS-approved tag-and-

release program. Tags may be obtained from the NMFS Cooperative Tagging

Program, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive,

Miami, FL, 33149, or the NMFS APEX Predator Investigation Cooperative

Shark Tagging Program, 28 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI, 02882.

Comment: Catch-and-release fishing for white sharks may cause

increased mortality.

Response: NMFS is aware that there is limited information regarding

post-release survival for white sharks and that there may be some

mortality associated with a catch-and-release-only fishery. However, it

is unlikely that mortality would increase from this action because all

recreationally caught white sharks will be required to be released,

whereas not all are released now. Therefore, even with some post-

release mortality, the increased release rate should decrease mortality

overall.

7. Prohibition on Filleting at Sea

NMFS received general support for the prohibition on filleting

sharks prior to landing; however, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S.

Small Business

[[Page 16653]]

Administration (SBA) commented that costs would increase.

Comment: Prohibiting filleting at sea will increase costs to vessel

owner/operators because they will be required to fillet only once in

port. Currently, they are allowed to fillet sharks while steaming into

port, which saves processing time and reduces labor costs.

Response: NMFS recognizes that costs will likely increase somewhat

but believes that the benefits of increased species-specific

identification and verification greatly outweigh those costs. NMFS

believes that the prohibition is necessary to aid in identification of

landings by dealers who must report by species. Additionally, NMFS

believes that many fishermen currently allow processors to fillet their

sharks such that any increase in costs for the fleet would be

minimized. NMFS adopts this prohibition without change. Sharks must be

landed and brought to the point of first landing with the flesh

attached and the spinal column present. Fishermen may remove the head

and fins and eviscerate the catch.

8. Species-Specific Identification Requirement

NMFS generally received support that requiring species-specific

identification of all sharks landed will improve management. Numerous

dealers and commercial and recreational fishermen requested information

on identification of sharks.

9. Other comments.

Comment: Several commercial shark fishermen, persons involved in

shark processing, commercial fishermen's associations, and one legal

representative of shark fishery interests commented that NMFS'

determination of no significant economic impact was flawed and vastly

underestimated the impact of a 50 percent quota reduction on all shark

fishermen. In addition, the SBA issued a letter to NMFS indicating

their disagreement with the determination. The SBA stated that most, if

not all, shark fishermen are small businesses that would suffer a

directly corresponding reduction in gross revenue from a large coastal

shark quota reduction.

Response: No evidence is available to NMFS to support the

assumption that there exists a directed fishery for sharks that

consists exclusively of specialist shark fishermen who do not harvest

any other species of fish. NMFS' permit database indicates that 97.7

percent of shark fishers hold permits for other commercial fishing

permits from the Southeast Regional Permit Office (SERO), which further

supports the multi-species nature of the fleet. Even so, the 2.4

percent who do not hold other SERO permits might hold permits from

other offices (e.g., Atlantic tunas) or may not be active in the shark

fishery, although no integrated database exists for cross-comparison.

Since vessels habitually switch to other fisheries as part of the

multi-species nature of the fleet, reduction of the time spent in the

shark fishery will not affect switching cost; switching still occurs

once or twice a year. In addition, since implementation of the FMP in

1993, the fishery has only been open for a short period of time

annually and NMFS believes that few, if any, fishermen are exclusively

dependent upon income from the large coastal shark fishery. Therefore,

alternative sources of income have been necessary, either from other

fisheries or other occupations. While NMFS agrees with SBA that most

shark vessels are considered small businesses, SBA incorrectly assumes

that a reduction in large coastal shark quotas will lead to a directly

corresponding reduction in gross ex-vessel revenues of fishermen.

Comment: The State of Florida and two conservation organizations

requested that NMFS prohibit the landing of additional species, namely

certain rays and sawfish.

Response: NMFS may investigate the need for affording protection to

additional species not currently included in the management unit.

Adjustment of the management unit to include additional species would

require an FMP amendment.

Comment: The State of Georgia requested that NMFS place additional

restrictions on the use of gillnets in the shark fishery.

Response: Gear restrictions are not currently within the scope of

the framework authority under the FMP. NMFS intends to amend the FMP to

address alternative management measures and, at that time, may examine

the possibility of gear restrictions.

Comment: Numerous conservation organizations and individuals

suggested a 100 lb. minimum size for mako sharks.

Response: NMFS has previously considered a minimum size for mako

sharks. A minimum size for mako sharks was rejected in the FMP because

of inadequate supporting biological information. No new analyses have

been presented to indicate a modification of the current management for

mako sharks is warranted. NMFS may address possible use of minimum

sizes for this and other species as part of the long-term rebuilding

plan.

Comment: Two conservation organizations commented that quota

overruns should be subtracted from the following years' quotas.

Response: This is not currently within the authority of the FMP.

Current regulations allow for the adjustment between quota periods

within a single year. NMFS may investigate the need for adjusting

quotas from year to year during the FMP amendment process.

Comment: One fishermen's association commented that NMFS must not

implement retroactive quota reductions.

Response: This is not a retroactive quota reduction. The proposed

rule was published on December 20, 1996. The fishing year for the

Atlantic shark fishery began on January 1, 1997, and the fishery has

been ongoing while NMFS has considered comments on the proposed rule.

While this action affects all landings beginning January 1, 1997, it is

reasonable because quotas have been in place since 1993 and fishery

participants are cognizant of annual quota adjustments. Additionally,

NMFS believes that any delay in the implementation of the effective

date of this action will result in the quota being exceeded for the

first season and possibly for the second season.

Other Issues: NMFS was provided with additional data and analyses

from a fishermen's association for further consideration. The submitted

data include species composition, nominal catch rate, and standardized

abundance index information from research surveys conducted by the

Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (the precursor to NMFS), the Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institute, and NMFS during the period 1957-1996. No

conclusions were presented about the status of sharks. Further, this

information has not been reviewed or analysed by any other scientists

so the scientific reliability of the approaches taken to developing the

depicted trends in catch rates is unknown. Therefore, it is

inappropriate to use the statistics presented to modify the conclusions

made in the 1996 SEW final report until such analyses are conducted.

The commentor concludes that the analysis presented raises questions

about the reliability of the large coastal shark stock declines

developed in the 1996 stock assessment. However, the information

depicted for the standardized abundance index for combined catches of

sandbar, dusky, silky, and blacktip sharks caught in the western North

Atlantic Ocean indicates a decline of about 80 percent from 1986-1996,

with each year's abundance index being less than the previous year's

abundance index, except in 1992 and

[[Page 16654]]

1994. While these data may raise questions about the magnitude of

declines in shark populations, as estimated by the 1996 SEW final

report, they do indicate, consistent with the 1996 SEW final report, a

substantial decline. Indeed, they may represent an even greater decline

than that presented in the 1996 SEW final report. In any event, NMFS

has concluded that they are not sufficient to justify allowing the

fishery to continue without the recommended reduction in effective

fishing mortality. The data presented apparently warrant further

assessment by the scientific community and should be examined for

possible additional modification to future commercial quotas by the

scientific community.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

Recreational Bag Limits

Based on public comments, one management measure has been changed.

NMFS has determined that a separate bag limit for Atlantic sharpnose

sharks is warranted for the reason outlined above. Therefore, the

recreational bag limit is as follows: 2 sharks per vessel per trip, for

any combination of species except Atlantic sharpnose sharks, which will

have a bag limit of 2 fish per person per trip.

White shark recreational fishery

NMFS has changed tag-and-release to catch-and-release-only

recreational fishing for the white shark. NMFS intends to submit for

OMB approval a new collection-of-information reporting requirement to

require that recreational fishing for white sharks operate under a tag-

and-release-only program.

Classification

The AA has determined that this rule is necessary for the

conservation and management of shark resources in the Atlantic Ocean

and is consistent with the national standards and other provisions of

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. This rule has been

determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. Copies of

the EA/RIR/FRFA are available (see ADDRESSES). The EA/RIR/FRFA, in

combination with the SEW Report, constitutes the annual SAFE Report.

The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce certified at the proposed rule stage to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that

the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. No Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis was prepared. During the comment period, NMFS received

comments from the public and SBA that indicated that the proposed rule

may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. NMFS, in response to the issues raised during the comment

period, prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to

ensure a thorough analysis of the impacts.

In summary, given the multispecies and multigear nature of the

commercial shark fishery and the existing management regulations that

control the harvest of sharks, few additional costs are expected to be

incurred by reducing the size of the directed shark fishery quota. At

present, the shark fishery for large coastal species lasts only a few

months twice a year and most, if not all, participants have already had

to diversify into other fisheries to maintain their financial

viability. Evidence available to NMFS indicates that it is highly

unlikely that vessel operators could survive a fishery that lasts a

total of less than four months a year without alternative sources of

income, either from other fisheries or other occupations. In addition,

the permit database indicates that 97.7 percent of permitted shark

fishers hold other fishing permits from the Southeast Regional Permit

Office (SERO). Even so, the 2.4 percent who do not hold other SERO

permits might hold permits from other offices (e.g. Atlantic tunas) or

may not participate in the Atlantic shark fishery. NMFS estimates that

a directed shark fisher would earn at most $26,426 in gross revenues -

not income - from the large coastal shark fishery alone. These revenues

would be supplemented by income from fishing on other Atlantic sharks

and other species such as tunas and swordfish. Additionally, nearly all

Atlantic shark fishers operate in the multispecies longline fishery

where gear requirements are substantially similar and require only a

modification to fish at different depths. Since vessels habitually

access other fisheries, reduction of the time spent in the shark

fishery will not affect switching cost; the switching still occurs once

or twice a year. Accordingly, a reduction in large coastal shark quotas

is highly unlikely to lead to a directly-corresponding reduction in

gross ex-vessel revenues of fishers. The result is that a reduction in

quota should have relatively little impact on commercial shark fishing

firms since the season, even if cut by more than half, would not

adversely impact other harvesting operations that take up the majority

of the fishing season.

Additionally, nearly all Atlantic shark commercial fishers operate

in the multispecies longline fishery where gear requirements are

substantially similar and require only a modification to fish at

different depths. Since vessels habitually access other fisheries,

reduction of the time spent in the shark fishery will not affect

switching cost; the switching still occurs once or twice a year.

Estimates of additional cost to access other fisheries are therefore

expected to be minimal. The fact remains that most shark fishermen are

longline operators and that longlines are used to target Atlantic

tunas, swordfish, and other sharks as well. The other Atlantic sharks,

i.e. small coastals and pelagic sharks, are subject to quotas which are

higher than historical catch levels (the pelagic shark fishery has

never been closed). It should also be noted that, the current trip

limit for large coastal sharks is designed, in part, to mitigate the

impact of restrictive quotas on the industry. Trip limits help to

extend the season, minimize market glut, and thereby maintain higher

prices.

NMFS notes that the Atlantic tunas fishery is open access, and that

with the exception of bluefin tuna, Atlantic tunas are not subject to

quotas. The Atlantic swordfish fishery is currently open access and

subject to a quota, although the fishery has not been closed since the

fall of 1995. There is a proposal being developed to limit access to

the swordfish fishery, however any current participant with a history

of swordfish catch will be allowed to land and sell swordfish under the

rule as proposed. Therefore, displaced fishers could transfer effort to

the Atlantic tuna, reef fish, or coastal pelagic fisheries for king and

Spanish mackerel, and potentially to Atlantic swordfish if previous

participation can be documented.

The recreational shark fisheries are exploited primarily by private

boat, charter boat, and head boat based fishers although some shore

based fishers are active in the fishery in the Florida Keys. The

restriction of 2 shark per vessel per day could reduce consumer surplus

generated by a directed recreational shark fishing trip. However, the

costs of reducing the landings rate should be mitigated by the 2

Atlantic sharpnose per person per trip exception as well as alternative

directed recreational fishing trips for other fish species and by

catch-and-release fishing. In addition, the state territorial seas

should remain open subject to their respective landings regulations.

This could cause a reallocation of effort from offshore waters to

nearshore waters which could increase fishing pressure on juvenile

stocks. However, major changes in net benefits are not expected for

recreational fishers.

[[Page 16655]]

The prohibition of fishing for, landing or sale of whale, basking,

sand tiger, and bigeye sand tiger sharks will not adversely affect

gross revenue because whale, basking, and bigeye sand tiger sharks are

only incidentally encountered in commercial fisheries and sand tiger

sharks are not a marketable species at this time. The prohibition of

fishing for, landing or sale of white sharks will not adversely affect

gross revenue because they are only incidentally encountered in the

commercial fishery. Requiring the recreational white shark fishery to

operate under a catch-and-release-only program may reduce the

willingness of recreational anglers to pay for a fishing trip. The

prohibition on filleting of sharks at sea will have little economic

impact but will increase costs to operators through increased labor to

fillet carcasses once in port.

In response to comments, NMFS did modify the recreational bag

limits to allow additional limits for Atlantic sharpnose sharks. It was

determined that providing this additional allowance would alleviate

some of the impacts on recreational operations while not negatively

impacting the resource. NMFS is aware that there may be alternative

actions that could stabilize or improve the population status of

sharks. However, the 1996 SEW final report indicated the need for

immediate reductions in effective fishing mortality. Alternative

actions, such as minimum sizes and/or nursery and pupping area

closures, were recommended in general by the 1996 SEW as mechanisms to

implement the immediate reductions in effective fishing mortality

required. However, specific area closures or minimum sizes were not

examined. Further, implementation of such alternative actions would

require more scientific analyses and coordination with Atlantic states

and regional fishery management councils, which would delay the

implementation of fishing mortality reductions beyond the

recommendation of immediate action. However, NMFS, consistent with

recent requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is establishing an

advisory panel that will consider these alternatives and others that

could be less burdensome and could achieve the appropriate levels of

fishing mortality necessary to rebuild the shark resource in the

context of the FMP.

Further, under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d)(3), NMFS has determined that

there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date as such

a delay would be contrary to the public interest. Preliminary

commercial landings estimates indicate that as of March 15, 1997,

approximately 740 metric tons dressed weight of large coastal sharks

had been taken, which is 115 percent of the first semiannual quota of

642 metric tons dressed weight. If this harvest rate continues, it is

possible that a significant portion or the entire first semiannual

quota might be taken prior to the effective date of this action, if

delayed. Further, the second semiannual quota would have to be

decreased by the overage in the first semiannual quota, and this could

adversely affect the northern states if that overage is significant. If

this authority results in a closure action for the large coastal shark

fishery, NMFS has the ability to rapidly communicate the closure to

fishery participants through its FAX network or NOAA weather radio. To

the extent practicable, advance notice of such closure will be

provided.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required

to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure

to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information

displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

This rule contains no new collection of information that may be

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act but refers to requirements that

have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control

Number 0648-0016, 0648-0013, 0648-0205, 0648-0229, and 0648-0306. NMFS

intends to submit a tagging reporting requirement to OMB for approval.

The prohibitions section has been reordered to group similar or

associated prohibitions. In addition, paragraphs are now designated by

numbers for the purposes of clarification.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 678

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 678 is amended

as follows:

PART 678--ATLANTIC SHARKS

1. The authority citation for part 678 continues to read as

follows:

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

2. In Sec. 678.2, the definitions for ``Dress'', ``Eviscerate'',

and ``Fillet'' are added; and the definition for ``Management Unit'' is

amended by removing under paragraph (1), ``Basking sharks--

Cetorhinidae'', ``Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus``; ``Sand tiger

sharks--Odontaspididae'', ``Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai``,

``Sand tiger, Odontaspis taurus`` and ``Whale sharks--Rhincodontidae'',

``Whale shark, Rhincodon typus``, and by adding a new paragraph (4) to

read as follows:

Sec. 678.2 Definitions

* * * * *

Dress means to remove head, viscera, and fins, but does not include

removal of the backbone, halving, quartering, or otherwise further

reducing the carcass.

* * * * *

Eviscerate means removal of the alimentary organs only.

Fillet means to remove slices of fish flesh, of irregular size and

shape, from the carcass by cuts made parallel to the backbone.

* * * * *

Management Unit * * *

(4) Prohibited species:

Basking sharks - Cetorhinidae

Basking shark - Cetorhinidae maximus

Mackerel sharks - Lamnidae

White shark - Carcharodon carcharias

Sand tiger sharks - Odontaspididae

Bigeye sand tiger - Odontaspis noronhai

Sand tiger - Odontaspis taurus

Whale sharks - Rhincodontidae

Whale shark - Rhincodon typus

* * * * *

Sec. 678.5 [Amended]

3. In Sec. 678.5, in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) after ``market

category'' add ``, and species,''.

4. Section 678.7 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 678.7 Prohibitions.

(a) In addition to the general prohibitions specified in Sec. 620.7

of this chapter, and except as permitted under Sec. 678.29, it is

unlawful for any person to do any of the following:

(1) Fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or possess or attempt to

fish for, purchase, trade, barter, or possess the following prohibited

species:

Basking sharks-Cetorhinidae

Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus

Mackerel sharks-Lamnidae

White sharks-Carcharodon carcharias

Sand tiger sharks-Odontaspididae

Bigeye sand tiger, Odontaspis noronhai

Sand tiger shark, Odontaspis taurus

Whale sharks-Rhincodontidae

Whale shark, Rhincodon typus

(2) Sell shark from the management unit or be exempt from the bag

limits without a vessel permit as specified in Sec. 678.4(a)(1).

[[Page 16656]]

(3) Purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to purchase, trade, or

barter, a shark from the management unit without an annual dealer

permit, as specified in Sec. 678.4(a)(2).

(4) Falsify information required in Sec. 678.4(b) and (c) on an

application for a permit.

(5) Fail to display a permit, as specified in Sec. 678.4(h).

(6) Falsify or fail to provide information required to be

maintained, submitted, or reported, as specified in Sec. 678.5.

(7) Fail to make a shark available for inspection or provide data

on catch and effort, as required by Sec. 678.5(d).

(8) Falsify or fail to display and maintain vessel identification,

as required by Sec. 678.6.

(9) Falsify or fail to provide requested information regarding a

vessel's trip, as specified in Sec. 678.10(a).

(10) Fail to embark an observer on a trip when selected, as

specified in Sec. 678.10(b).

(11) Assault, resist, oppose, impede, harass, intimidate, or

interfere with a NMFS-approved observer aboard a vessel or prohibit or

bar by command, impediment, threat, coercion, or refusal of reasonable

assistance, an observer from conducting his/her duties aboard a vessel.

(12) Fail to provide an observer with the required food,

accommodations, access, and assistance, as specified in Sec. 678.10(c).

(13) Remove the fins from a shark and discard the remainder, as

specified in Sec. 678.22 (a)(1).

(14) Possess shark fins, carcasses, or parts on board, or offload

shark fins from, a fishing vessel, except as specified in Sec. 678.22,

or possess shark carcasses or parts on board, or offload shark fins,

carcasses, or parts from, a vessel, except as specified in

Sec. 678.22(a)(2) and (3).

(15) Fail to release a shark that will not be retained in the

manner specified in Sec. 678.22(b).

(16) Land, or possess on any trip, shark in excess of the vessel

trip limit, as specified in Sec. 678.22(c)(1).

(17) Transfer a shark at sea, as specified in Secs. 678.22(c)(2)

and 678.23(e).

(18) Fillet a shark at sea, as specified in Sec. 678.22(d), except

that sharks may be eviscerated and the head and fins may be removed.

(19) Exceed the bag limits, as specified in Sec. 678.23 (a) through

(c), or operate a vessel with a shark on board in excess of the bag

limits, as specified in Sec. 678.23(d).

(20) Sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, trade, or barter,

a shark harvested in the EEZ, except as an owner or operator of a

vessel with a permit, as specified in Sec. 678.25(a), or sell, trade,

or barter, or attempt to sell, trade or barter, a shark from the

management unit, except as an owner or operator of a vessel with a

permit, as specified in Sec. 678.26.

(21) Purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to purchase, trade or

barter, shark meat or fins from the management unit from an owner or

operator of a vessel that does not possess a vessel permit, as

specified in Sec. 678.26(b); or sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to

sell, trade, or barter, a shark from the management unit, except to a

permitted dealer, as specified in Sec. 678.26(d).

(22) Sell, purchase, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell,

purchase, trade, or barter, shark fins that are disproportionate to the

weight of carcasses landed, as specified in Sec. 678.26(c).

(23) Interfere with, obstruct, delay, or prevent by any means an

investigation, search, seizure, or disposition of seized property in

connection with enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

(24) During a closure for a shark species group, retain a shark of

that species group on board a vessel that has been issued a permit

under Sec. 678.4, except as provided in Sec. 678.24(a), or sell,

purchase, trade, or barter or attempt to sell, purchase, trade, or

barter a shark of that species group, as specified in Sec. 678.24.

(25) Fish for sharks with a drift gillnet that is 2.5 km or more in

length or possess a shark aboard a vessel possessing such drift

gillnet, as specified in Sec. 678.21.

(b) [Reserved]

5. In Sec. 678.22, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 678.22 Harvest limitations.

* * * * *

(d) Filleting. (1) A shark from any of the three management units

that is possessed in the EEZ, or harvested by a vessel that has been

issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 678.4, may not be filleted at sea.

Sharks may be eviscerated and the head and fins may be removed.

6. In Sec. 678.23, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 678.23 Bag limits.

* * * * *

(b) Large coastal, small coastal and pelagic species, combined--2

per vessel per trip.

(c) Atlantic sharpnose shark--2 per person per trip.

* * * * *

7. In Sec. 678.24, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 678.24 Commercial quotas.

* * * * *

(b) Semiannual. The following commercial quotas apply:

(1) For the period January 1 through June 30:

(i) Large coastal species--642 metric tons, dressed weight.

(ii) Small coastal species--880 metric tons, dressed weight.

(iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons, dressed weight.

(2) For the period July 1 through December 31:

(i) Large coastal species--642 metric tons, dressed weight.

(ii) Small coastal species--880 metric tons, dressed weight.

(iii) Pelagic species--290 metric tons, dressed weight.

* * * * *

8. Section 678.29 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 678.29 Catch-and-release program.

(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, a person may

fish for, but not retain, white sharks with rod and reel only under a

catch and release program, provided the person releases and returns

such fish to the sea immediately with a minimum of injury.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 97-8754 Filed 4-2-97; 8:53 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F