[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5633-5642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 635
[Docket No. 060313062-7010-02; I.D. 082305E]
RIN 0648-AT37
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark
Management Measures; Gear Operation and Deployment; Complementary
Closures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule will implement additional handling, release,
and disentanglement requirements for sea turtles and other non-target
species caught in the commercial shark bottom longline (BLL) fishery.
These requirements increase the amount of handling, release, and
disentanglement gear that are required to be on BLL vessels and are
intended to reduce post hooking mortality of sea turtles and other non-
target species consistent with the Highly Migratory Species (HMS)
Fishery Management Plan (FMP). This final rule will also implement
management measures, consistent with those recommended by the Caribbean
Fishery Management Council (CFMC) and implemented by NMFS on October
28, 2005, that prohibit vessels issued HMS permits with BLL gear
onboard from fishing in six distinct areas off the U.S. Virgin Islands
and Puerto Rico, year-round. These six closures are intended to
minimize adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for reef-
dwelling species.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Final EA/RIR/FRFA)
can be obtained from LeAnn S. Hogan, Highly Migratory Species
Management Division at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
[[Page 5634]]
Other related documents including copies of the document entitled
``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with Minimal
Injury'' may be obtained from the mailing address listed above, and are
also available on the internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
Copies of the documents supporting the actions contained in the
Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S.
Caribbean may be obtained by contacting Steve Branstetter, Southeast
Regional Office, 263 13\th\ Ave. South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
telephone 727-824-5305.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LeAnn S. Hogan or Karyl Brewster-Geisz
by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). The HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part
635. The fisheries for spiny lobster, queen conch, reef fish, and
corals and reef-associated invertebrates in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) off Puerto Rico and off the U.S. Virgin Islands are managed under
fishery management plans prepared by the CFMC. These fishery management
plans are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Background
On March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15680), NMFS published a rule that
proposed certain dehooking equipment be on vessels with shark BLL gear
on board. Additionally, the rule proposed closing certain areas in the
Caribbean to vessels with shark BLL gear on board. NMFS examined
several alternatives, the details of which are outlined in the proposed
rule and are not repeated here.
As noted in the proposed rule, an objective of the 2003 final rule
(December 24 2003; 68 FR 74746) implementing Amendment 1 to the FMP for
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, was to minimize, to the extent
practicable, bycatch of living marine resources and the mortality of
such bycatch that cannot be avoided in the fisheries for Atlantic
sharks. The rule implementing Amendment 1 finalized measures that
required the use of non-stainless steel, corrodible hooks aboard shark
BLL fishing vessels, the possession of release equipment (line cutters
and dipnets, both with extended reach handles), and also required BLL
vessels to immediately release any sea turtle, marine mammal, or
smalltooth sawfish that is hooked or entangled and then move at least
one nautical mile (2 km) before resuming fishing activities. At that
time, NMFS had not yet approved dehooking devices for sea turtles.
Therefore, implementation of the measure was delayed pending approval.
The purpose of this today's final rulemaking is to update the
necessary equipment and protocols that vessel operators in the BLL
fishery must possess, maintain, and utilize for the safe handling,
release, and disentanglement of sea turtles and other non-target
species. Significant new information, techniques, and equipment have
been approved and implemented for the pelagic longline (PLL) fishery
since NMFS enacted the dehooking requirements for the BLL fishery.
Participants in the PLL fishery are required to possess, maintain, and
utilize a suite of NMFS-approved handling and dehooking equipment when
engaged in fishing activities (July 6, 2004; 69 FR 40734). Research
conducted in the Northeast Distant statistical reporting area (NED) has
indicated that removing the maximum amount of gear from sea turtles
significantly increases post-release survival. Dehooking devices that
meet NMFS design standards are necessary for removal of fishing gear
and are now available to release sea turtles.
Another objective of this final rule is to implement measures that
are complementary to CFMC-recommended measures that NMFS implemented on
October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073). These measures will prohibit vessels
issued HMS permits with BLL gear onboard from fishing in six distinct
areas off the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, year-round. These
six closures should minimize adverse impacts to EFH and reduce fishing
mortality for mutton snapper, red hind, and other reef-dwelling
species. Scoping hearings for the Comprehensive Amendment to the FMPs
of the Caribbean, including the BLL closures in this rulemaking, were
conducted from June 4 - 12, 2002, in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of
availability (NOA) of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Assessment (DSEIS) in the Federal Register on March 18, 2005 (70 FR
13190). The final supplemental environmental impact statement for the
Comprehensive Amendment to the FMPs of the Caribbean was filed with the
Environmental Protection Agency on June 17, 2005, with the NOA
published on June 24, 2005 (70 FR 36581). Based on recent guidance NMFS
hopes to publish a proposed rule on equipment that would allow the
dehooking of smalltooth sawfish.
Response to Comments
The public comment period for the proposed rule (March 29, 2006; 71
FR 15680) was open from March 29 to June 27, 2006. During that time,
NMFS held five public hearings and received several written comments. A
summary of the major comments received, along with NMFS response, is
provided below.
Comment 1: Several commenters urged NMFS to mandate training in sea
turtle handling techniques for all BLL fishermen by requiring them to
attend workshops similar to those for PLL; BLL fishermen should carry
``Careful Release Protocols for Release with Minimal Injury'' onboard
but this is not a substitute for hands on training; NMFS should
consider whether sea turtle resuscitation techniques similar to those
used for sea turtles caught by vessels fishing for shrimp are
appropriate for BLL; all BLL vessel owners, operators, and observers
(and as many crew as possible) should attend a certification level
workshop in order to achieve the same level of proficiency as the
Northeast Distant (NED) experiment; NMFS must be sensitive to fishing
schedules when scheduling workshops; and NMFS might consider having a
sticker on vessels whose owners/operators have completed the safe
handling and release workshops; and NMFS could accelerate the learning
process by educating the recreational sector about these protocols for
reducing post release mortality of various sea life.
Response: NMFS agrees that hands-on training on safe handling and
release protocols for sea turtles and other protected resources is
invaluable. The Final Consolidated HMS FMP and its final rule (October
2, 2006; 71 FR 58058) require all PLL and BLL longline and shark
gillnet vessel owners and operators to attend, and successfully
complete, workshops on the safe handling and release of protected
resources before renewing their permit in 2007. While participants in
other HMS fisheries, including HMS Angling and Charter/headboats (CHB)
categories are not required to attend, the Agency is encouraging their
participation to better understand the materials and protocols
available for reducing post-hooking mortality of protected species and
other non-target catch. Additional information on the safe handling and
release workshops can be found in the Consolidated HMS FMP. Workshop
schedules can be found on the HMS website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
[[Page 5635]]
sfa/hms/workshops/index.htm. Currently, all participants in the
Atlantic BLL and PLL fisheries are required to follow resuscitation
requirements as stated in Sec. 223.206(d)(1). These requirements would
not change as a result of this rulemaking.
Comment 2: Several comments were received relating to observer
coverage in HMS fisheries, including: increase observer coverage to at
least 10 percent; estimates of take and mortality in the PLL fishery
have been underestimated; turtles caught on BLL are more susceptible to
drowning; are observers put on boats from Virginia northward or Panama
City westward?; the extrapolated takes that create the Incidental Take
Statement (ITS) seem too high, especially for smalltooth sawfish that
occur in a small portion of the Atlantic; the number of takes reported
by the observer program has been questioned in the past; why not show
the observed number of takes rather than the extrapolated numbers?
Response: Currently, the Agency maintains observer coverage levels
that are consistent with the National Bycatch Report and in compliance
with the 2003 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the shark fisheries.
Vessels are randomly selected for observer coverage based on region,
recent landings, recent selection for observer coverage, and whether
they have a valid HMS permit. From 1994 through 2001, the shark BLL
observer program was a voluntary program and the observers only went on
vessels that agreed to take them. Thus, the data for this time period
was not based on a random selection process and did not cover the
entire range of the fishery. However, it did cover vessels operating in
the major fishing grounds off Florida and North Carolina. In 2002, the
observer program became mandatory, with vessels selected randomly
across areas based on historic participation patterns. Therefore,
vessels in all regions, including those from Virginia northward and
from Panama City, FL, westward, are required to carry an observer, if
selected. The Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for smalltooth sawfish
and sea turtles was determined by the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources during the 2003 consultation in conjunction with measures
contained in Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and
Shark (December 24, 2003; 68 FR 74746). The ITS for shark fisheries was
based on the extrapolated takes including associated mortalities for
the BLL and gillnet fishery. Extrapolated takes were determined based
on interaction rates reported in the BLL observer data from 1994
through 2002 in relation to fishing effort data (i.e., number of hooks)
based on data from the Coastal Fisheries logbook (Gulf of Mexico reef
fish, South Atlantic snapper-grouper, king and Spanish mackerel, and
shark logbook) and HMS logbook for trips that reported using BLL gear
and landing sharks.
Comment 3: Nesting declines identified in the northern sub-
population of loggerhead sea turtles are alarming; western Atlantic
loggerhead sea turtles are in clear decline; the southern loggerhead
sea turtle nesting subpopulation has declined 29 percent in last 17
years; green and leatherback sea turtle nesting has been increasing
dramatically since 1989; and fisheries in the western and eastern
Atlantic appear to have a significant impact on Florida's nesting
loggerhead sea turtles.
Response: NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share
responsibility for threatened and endangered sea turtles. In general,
marine-related activities, such as fishing, are within the purview of
NMFS, whereas, terrestrial activities are within the purview of USFWS.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that federal agencies ensure
that the actions that they authorize, fund, or conduct do not
jeopardize the continued existence of these species. Recovery plans
including terrestrial and marine issues for leatherback and loggerhead
sea turtles have been in place for several years. The BiOp issued in
October 2003 found that Atlantic shark BLL fisheries are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species of sea turtles under
NMFS' purview, however, incidental takes of sea turtles (primarily
loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles) are anticipated. Finally, the
measures selected in this final rule are expected to reduce the post-
hooking mortality of sea turtles that are hooked or entangled in the
BLL fishery for Atlantic sharks by requiring participants to possess,
maintain, and utilize the necessary equipment to remove as much gear as
possible from sea turtles to enhance their post-hooking survival and
recovery rates.
Comment 4: NMFS received a variety of comments in support of the
preferred alternative for gear deployment and operation and some of the
benefits of using the dehooking equipment. The comments included: the
Agency must also provide an incentive to use the dehooking gear; this
equipment was originally designed in the shark fishery; vessels will
save time re-rigging and costs by retrieving the hooks with the
handling and release equipment; fishermen in Ecuador have been using
the dehooking equipment to retrieve hooks which saves them money; and
we support all technology that is developed in collaboration with
industry.
Response: NMFS agrees that using the dehooking gear can be
beneficial to both the fisherman in terms of saved hooks and sea
turtles. The selected alternative for gear deployment maintains
consistency between the requirements for safe handling, release, and
disentanglement of sea turtles and other protected resources caught in
Atlantic PLL and BLL fisheries. This equipment was developed in
collaboration with the PLL industry. Updating the requirements for the
Atlantic shark BLL fishery is necessary to reduce the post-hooking
mortality of sea turtles while increasing the likelihood that the ITS
for this fishery is not exceeded in the future. Incentives for
fishermen to use the dehooking equipment include, but are not limited
to, improving the ability of fishermen to retrieve hooks and fishing
equipment, which may result in less time spent re-rigging and/or
reduced expenditures for hooks.
Comment 5: NMFS received several comments about the estimated costs
of procuring the required dehooking equipment, both to individuals and
to the shark BLL industry as a whole, including: NMFS should emphasize
that BLL operators could reduce costs of required equipment under the
preferred alternative by making most of the equipment themselves; a
significant portion of the 284 vessels referred to in the draft EA
already have PLL permits and already have the equipment, therefore the
estimated economic impact associated with the preferred alternative of
$71,900 to $138,400 seems high.
Response: NMFS has stated that BLL operators may construct any of
the dehooking equipment required by this rule themselves as long as the
equipment meets the design standards at 50 CFR 635.21. NMFS also
assumes that numerous participants already possess some of the
equipment required by this rulemaking, including: bolt cutters,
monofilament line cutters, needle nose pliers, standard automobile tire
or other comparable surface for immobilizing and elevating turtles,
certain mouth gags (nylabone, hank of rope, piece of PVC), and a boat
hook or gaff for pulling an inverted ``V'' on entangled turtles,
thereby minimizing the economic impacts of compliance with this
rulemaking. NMFS derived the estimate of 284 vessel owners that could
potentially be impacted by this rulemaking from the 555 directed and
incidental shark permit holders that possessed permits in April 2006.
Of those vessels, 284 did not have a
[[Page 5636]]
directed or incidental swordfish permit. An incidental or directed
swordfish permit would be necessary to fish with PLL gear, and those
permitted vessels would already be required to possess, maintain, and
utilize the equipment and protocols prescribed in this rulemaking. NMFS
agrees that this may be an overestimate, as it does not account for
latent effort in BLL and PLL fisheries. However, inactivity in the
recent past would not exempt permit holders from the need to procure
the required equipment before fishing in the future.
Comment 6: NMFS received several comments about the current
requirements for dehooking equipment in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery,
including: all BLL vessels should already have line cutters, dipnets,
bolt cutters, hank of rope, and a wooden brush; NMFS' estimates of
costs for the various alternative (high and low end costs) assume that
all, or most of the vessels under and over 4 ft have not been in
compliance with Amendment 1 (required dipnet and line cutters); are BLL
vessels currently required to carry a dipnet?; and many BLL vessel
operators do not know about the dipnet requirement.
Response: The cost estimates that NMFS provided in the draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) and proposed rule (March, 29, 2006; 71 FR
15680) assumed that all vessels in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery are
in compliance with the current equipment requirements for that fishery,
which include possession of a long-handled dipnet and linecutter. Costs
of compliance included a low-end and a high-end estimate for complying
with the range of alternatives considered for this rulemaking. For the
preferred alternative, these estimates were between $253.25 and $977.30
and may vary depending on the vessel's freeboard height, what equipment
the vessel operator already possesses, whether or not the operators
choose to construct some of the materials themselves, and where
operators acquire their equipment. The current requirement to possess
long-handled dipnets and linecutters for release and disentanglement of
sea turtles was included in Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 24,
2003; 68 FR 74746).
Comment 7: NMFS received a variety of comments related to bycatch,
National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and dehooking
requirements in other HMS-managed fisheries, including: according to
National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must reduce
bycatch, but if NMFS cannot reduce bycatch, it must reduce the
mortality of bycatch; the recreational sector cannot reduce bycatch so
they must reduce the mortality of bycatch, thus, the recreational
sector should have the same requirements put on them regarding safe
handling and release of protected species as does the commercial
sector; there may be significant interactions with protected species
and recreational shark anglers and in the Charter Headboat (CHB)
industry; a precautionary/pro-active approach would require the use of
comparable handling and release technologies within the recreational
hook and line fishery as is required for the commercial PLL and BLL
sectors; all commercial fisheries (vertical line, CHB, and tournaments)
should be required to utilize the same safe handling and release
equipment -- all these fisheries have post-release mortality issues
that could be solved with the equipment; the recreational sector is by
far the largest user group; technology is being transferred from one
gear sector to another (PLL to BLL and CHB) and that is the way it
should be; as owners, operators, and mates become more proficient at
using careful handling and release equipment, they will be safely
releasing numerous other non-targeted species and protected resources
with the same sea turtle release equipment, which will benefit the
conservation efforts of many other fisheries.
Response: The requirements to possess, maintain, and utilize
additional dehooking, disentanglement, and safe release equipment were
not analyzed for fisheries outside of the Atlantic shark BLL fishery in
this rulemaking. The Agency is aware of interactions with sea turtles
and other protected resources that may occur outside of the Atlantic
shark BLL fishery, including recreational rod and reel fisheries.
However, the Agency does not have specific data on interaction rates in
these fisheries as they have not been historically selected for
observer coverage or required to submit logbooks. While the workshops
required by the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP are only required for vessel
owners and operators in the HMS longline and gillnet fisheries,
participants in other HMS fisheries (HMS Angling, Charter Headboat, and
General Category) are also encouraged to attend these workshops as
their participation will enhance their understanding of the materials
and protocols available for reducing post-hooking mortality of
protected species and other non-target catch.
Comment 8: NMFS received comments regarding the role of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), including: these are two
management entities that are designed to protect U.S. fishermen; we
need to sustain U.S. quotas; we cannot transfer handling and release
technologies if the United States has no quota; the U.S. fishermen have
been environmentally friendly at the expense of their quotas; and most
sea turtle bycatch occurs internationally, and why do other countries
take sea turtles while the United States does not?
Response: NMFS agrees that the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ICCAT are
designed to protect fisheries resources and their participants that
depend on these resources. This rulemaking did not consider any
alternatives that would affect U.S. quotas of any species, ICCAT-
managed or otherwise. Currently, sharks are not managed by specific
total allowable catches (TAC) or quotas implemented by ICCAT. The
dehooking, disentanglement, and release requirements specified in the
selected alternative are being implemented to comply with the October
2003 BiOp and to maintain consistency among HMS longline fisheries.
Comment 9: NMFS received a comment stating that new handling and
release requirements should be considered when future BiOps and ITSs
are established.
Response: Any existing regulations that may affect the post-hooking
survival of sea turtles or other threatened and endangered species will
likely be considered in future interagency consultations (i.e., Section
7 of the ESA) on the Atlantic shark BLL fishery as well as other HMS
fisheries.
Comment 10: NMFS received a comment asking where the information on
turtle takes in the BLL fishery comes from.
Response: The ITS is established during a Section 7 consultation
with the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. The data used to determine
the extrapolated takes and ITS for the BLL fishery are outlined in the
response to Comment 2. These limits represent the number of total
estimated takes, based on extrapolated observed takes. The October 2003
BiOp considered each gear type (gillnet and BLL) independently. If the
actual calculated incidental captures or mortalities exceed the amount
estimated for a gear type, the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries
must immediately reinitiate consultation with the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources for that gear type.
Comment 11: NMFS received several comments related to the
complementary management measures for the Caribbean
[[Page 5637]]
region, including: why are Caribbean BLL closures lumped into this
rule?; Does NMFS regulate the Caribbean?; and does Puerto Rico have a
200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and does this rule affect them?
Response: In addition to the dehooking, handling, and release
requirements for Atlantic shark BLL fisheries, this rulemaking would
also implement complementary measures per the request of the CFMC.
These measures would prohibit all vessels that have been issued HMS
permits with BLL gear onboard from fishing with, or deploying, any
fishing gear in six distinct areas off the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico, year-round, to protect EFH of reef-dwelling fish species.
The final rule that implemented similar measures for fisheries managed
by the CFMC was published on October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073). These
measures are being included in this rulemaking because they are germane
to the Atlantic shark BLL fishery. However, the impacts associated with
these measures are not expected to be significant as there is only one
documented commercial shark permit in the Caribbean region. NMFS, in
cooperation with the CFMC, regulates Federal fisheries off the coasts
of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands because they are U.S.
territories. This rule would affect Puerto Rico in the U.S. EEZ beyond
the limit of their coastal waters, which extend out to 9 miles.
Comment 12: NMFS received comments on the protocols for vessel
operators if they interact with a marine mammal or sea turtle,
including: if you interact with a marine mammal, can you just move the
animal one mile instead of the vessel? and if a sea turtle is comatose,
is it still necessary to relocate the animal one mile?
Response: If vessel operators interact with a marine mammal,
smalltooth sawfish or a sea turtle, Federal regulations at 50 CFR
635.21(d)(2), require them to immediately release the animal, retrieve
the BLL gear, and move at least 1 nautical mile (2 km) from the
location of the incident before resuming fishing. Reports of marine
mammal entanglements must be submitted to NMFS consistent with the
regulations in 50 CFR 229.6. It is important to note that the vessel
should move 1 nautical mile (2 km) before resuming fishing, rather than
moving the animal. Comatose sea turtles must be resuscitated according
to the regulations at 50 CFR 223.206. Once sea turtles are revived,
they must be released over the stern of the boat, only when fishing or
scientific collection gear is not in use, when the engine gears are in
neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to be recaptured
or injured by vessels.
Comment 13: Is NMFS going to subsidize or pay for the purchase of
dehooking equipment?
Response: NMFS does not have any plans to subsidize the purchase of
dehooking equipment for participants in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery.
The costs of compliance with this rulemaking can be minimized by
fishermen making some of the required equipment themselves, provided it
meets the design standards in 50 CFR 635.21 and outlined in Appendix A
of the EA for this rulemaking.
Comment 14: NMFS received a comment about consistency between the
dehooking regulations proposed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (GOMFMC) in Amendment 18A to the Reef Fish Fishery Management
Plan (August 9, 2006; 71 FR 45428), which would update the dehooking
requirements for commercial Atlantic shark fishermen deploying BLL
gear. The commenter noted that the requirements were different while
they should be the same.
Response: NMFS is aware of the final rule updating handling and
dehooking requirements for sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish in
compliance with a BiOp issued in conjunction with Amendment 18A of the
Reef Fish FMP (August 9, 2006; 71 FR 45428). There are some differences
in the dehooking equipment that are required per the regulations for
Amendment 18A of the Reef Fish FMP, compared to the requirements
selected in this rulemaking. The measures selected in this action were
designed to maintain compliance with the October 2003 BiOp that was
issued in conjunction with Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish and Sharks and to maintain consistency with regulations that
are currently in effect for the HMS PLL fishery. There are numerous
individuals who deploy both BLL and PLL often on the same trip,
targeting different species. Therefore, it seems prudent to maintain
the same requirements for all HMS-managed longline fisheries regardless
of what other fisheries management entities are implementing. All
vessels that possess a commercial HMS shark permit would be required to
abide by the regulations selected in this rulemaking when BLL gear is
onboard, despite the fact that they may possess additional permits for
fisheries conducted in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, if BLL
fishermen fulfill the regulations selected in this rulemaking, they
would also be compliant with the final dehooking measures for Amendment
18A.
Comment 15: NMFS received several comments seeking clarification as
to how the preferred alternative, which would require Atlantic shark
fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize
additional safe handling and release equipment consistent with the
requirements for the PLL fishery and comply with handling and release
guidelines, differs from alternative 2, which would require Atlantic
shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize
additional equipment for the safe handling, release, and
disentanglement of sea turtles, marine mammals, smalltooth sawfish, and
other bycatch dependent on the vessels' freeboard height. Additionally,
the following comments were received regarding the preferred
alternative, including: would everyone be required to possess a six
foot or longer dehooker under the preferred alternative?; since the
preferred alternative would require the same safe handling and
dehooking protocols for the BLL fishery as the PLL fishery, there
should not be any enforceability issues; and the definition of
freeboard height may result in some enforcement issues.
Response: The selected alternative would require all HMS permit
holders with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize the
same equipment and protocols required in the PLL fishery. Required
equipment includes: long-handled dehookers for ingested and external
hooks, a long-handled device to pull an inverted ``V'', long-handled
dipnet, short-handled dehooker for ingested and external hooks, bolt
cutter, monofilament line cutter, needle nose pliers, standard
automobile tire (or comparable cushioned elevated surface), two types
of mouth openers/gags, and the Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle
Release with Minimal Injury (SEFSC-524). Under the selected
alternative, all long-handled equipment must be a minimum of 6 feet
(1.82 m) in length or 150 percent of freeboard height. The primary
difference between the selected alternative and non-preferred
alternative 2, is that alternative 2 would require vessels to possess,
maintain, and utilize additional long-handled equipment dependent on
the vessels' freeboard height. Vessels with a freeboard height of 4
feet (1.22 m) or less would not be required to possess, maintain, and
utilize the long-handled dehookers for ingested and external hooks or
the long-handled device to pull an inverted ``V'' but would be required
to have the rest of the dehooking equipment onboard. Vessels with a
freeboard height greater
[[Page 5638]]
than 4 feet (1.22 m) would be required to possess the same equipment as
required in the preferred alternative, however, the long-handled
equipment that they are required to possess would only have to be 6
feet in length and not 150 percent of the freeboard height.
Comment 16: NMFS received a comment asking whether all of the data
used for the analysis for this rule was taken from BLL boats.
Response: The data employed for this rule was attained from both
the Atlantic shark BLL fishery and the PLL fishery. NMFS used the best
available data for this rulemaking. These data included the number of
HMS permits and location of HMS permit holders as of October 2005,
commercial landings from the 2004 Coastal Fisheries logbooks, ex-vessel
prices for shark products as of 2003, and extrapolated estimates from
observer data are from 1994 [dash] 2002.
Comment 17: The biggest killers of sea turtles are shrimp boats
operating within 15 miles of the U.S. coast. The turtles bounce through
several Turtle Exclusion Devices (TED) and become disoriented and
lethargic afterwards.
Response: NMFS is aware of sea turtle interactions in the shrimp
fishery. The annual anticipated incidental take levels are much greater
in the shrimp fishery than both BLL and PLL fisheries. The shrimp
fishery operates within the confines of their specific BiOp, and turtle
takes in that fishery are outside the objectives of this rulemaking.
Comment 18: A lot of people did not show up at this hearing because
they went through a voluntary BLL dehooking workshop last year in
Madeira Beach with Charlie Bergmann.
Response: The NMFS Point Of Contact for safe handling, release, and
disentanglement, held nine voluntary workshops in 2005 (May 20, 2005;
70 FR 29285) for participants in the BLL fishery to become more adept
at sea turtle handling release and disentanglement protocols. NMFS
commends those fishermen who attended the voluntary BLL handling,
release, and disentanglement workshops. However, the public hearings
for this proposed rule served a different purpose - it provided a forum
for NMFS to explain and obtain important input from fishermen and other
constituents regarding management measures that the Agency was
considering regarding commercial Atlantic shark fishery management.
This rulemaking will implement the handling, release, and
disentanglement requirements for the Atlantic shark BLL fishery that
had previously been voluntary. NMFS attempts to schedule public
meetings at times that are conducive to constituent participation and
sends out notices in addition to publishing FR notices that announce
the time and place of hearings. In addition, NMFS informs key points of
contacts and HMS Advisory Panel members in each region to announce the
time and place of hearings in those regions. However, the Agency is
interested in getting feedback from constituents regarding outreach and
how it can better inform participants about the rulemaking process
pending changes in their fisheries.
Comment 19: A six foot handle length should be a minimum for all
long-handled equipment.
Response: The preferred alternative would require that all long-
handled equipment be 6 feet (1.82 m) or 150 percent of the vessel's
freeboard height.
Comment 20: I fished off Cape Canaveral for years and never heard
of a turtle being caught on BLL gear. Hooking sea turtles is what leads
to time/area closures.
Response: Interactions between sea turtles and BLL gear are
sporadic and dependent upon time of year, oceanographic conditions,
fishing techniques, and other factors. Reducing sea turtle bycatch and
bycatch mortality is important to maintain compliance with the ESA and
relevant BiOps. Interaction rates with sea turtles are one of many
considerations for implementing additional time/area closures as a
fishery management tool; however, as was done with the rulemaking that
established dehooking and safe handling techniques for the PLL fishery
(July 6, 2004; 69 FR 40734), NMFS seeks alternative management measures
to time/area closures to decrease interactions with protected species
with fishing gears and/or increase post-release survival of protected
species once they have interacted with fishing gear.
Comment 21: Most BLL fishermen deploy cable, and not monofilament
line, so NMFS cannot assume that PLL and BLL are being deployed by the
same vessel on any given trip.
Response: Data collected from the commercial shark fishery observer
program indicated that in 2005, approximately 24 percent of observed
longline sets deployed cable line, 72 percent deployed monofilament,
and approximatley 3 percent deployed a combination of monofilament and
cable. Additionally, the PLL observer program has observed trips that
use both PLL and BLL and such trips are reported in logbooks.
Comment 22: Sometimes an inexperienced person with dehooking
equipment is more dangerous to the fish than someone who does not
attempt to pull the hook out themselves.
Response: NMFS requires mandatory workshops resulting in
certification on the safe handling, release, and disentanglement
techniques as part of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2, 2006;
71 FR 58058). These hands-on workshops provide training on the proper
techniques for using the required safe handling and release equipment,
which would prevent bycatch and protected species from sustaining
additional injuries as a result of attempted dehooking or
disentanglement.
Comment 23: NMFS received numerous comments regarding the safety of
fishermen while using safe handling and release protocols for sea
turtles and confusion resulting from the terminology used to describe
the requirements in the proposed rule. The comments included: the
guidelines are confusing describing protocols that are required and
that are not required; It would be valuable to have uniform (and
intuitive) terminology to describe the protocols used in outreach
materials so that fishermen know what is required and what is not,
especially in situations where risks are involved; handling and release
requirements pose a risk to safety of life at sea; the handling and
release requirements should clearly state that they are to be employed
only ``when practicable''; the documents speak towards risk to turtles
but they do not speak towards risk to humans during the procedures -- a
comparable caveat would be appropriate for any aspect of the
disentanglement or line cutting; future mandatory workshops should
discuss safety issues posed to humans while attempting to employ the
handling and release requirements.
Response: NMFS currently has protocols for how to safely dehook,
disentangle, and release sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish that are
caught in the PLL fishery. This rulemaking requires that these
protocols for safe handling, release, and disentanglement are also
mandatory for the BLL shark fishery. These protocols were developed to
minimize risks to fishermen while attempting to employ the required
equipment and guidelines. NMFS expects fishermen to disentangle and
dehook a protected species (and/or bycatch) to the best of their
ability and safety. For example, NMFS has protocols for smaller sea
turtles that can be boated as well as separate protocols for sea
turtles too large and dangerous to be boated.
The Agency also uses consistent terminology for protocols and
outreach
[[Page 5639]]
materials. In this rulemaking, NMFS has based the disentanglement, safe
handling, and release requirements for protected species on the
requirements in the PLL fishery to maintain consistency between the two
HMS fisheries. In addition, the Agency provides placards, video
demonstrations, and illustrations of these protocols in Vietnamese,
Spanish, and English and is conducting workshops to certify fisherman
in the use of the equipment.
Changes from Proposed Rule
There are no changes from the proposed rule (March 29, 2006; 71 FR
15680).
Classification
This final rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
The final rule implementing management measures specific to
Council-managed species was determined to be significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866. This final rule, which would close
complementary areas for HMS fisheries and require dehooking equipment
for BLL fishermen, has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
In compliance with 5 U.S.C. 604, a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The FRFA analyzes the
anticipated impacts of the preferred alternatives and any significant
alternatives to the final rule that could minimize significant economic
impacts on small entities. Each of the statutory requirements of
section 604 has been addressed, and a summary of the FRFA is provided
below.
NMFS also prepared a FRFA for the final rule that implemented the
management measures in the Comprehensive Amendment to the Caribbean
FMPs. The FRFA incorporated the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis (IRFA) published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 53979), a
summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in
response to the IRFA, NMFS' response to public comments on the IRFA,
and a summary of the analyses completed to support that action. No
comments were received in response to the IRFA that related to HMS
fisheries. The IRFA prepared for the action in this final rule (March
29, 2006; 71 FR 15680) incorporated by reference, the findings of the
FRFA published on October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073), and describes the
economic impact this action, if adopted, would have on small entities
participating in HMS fisheries.
Section 604(a)(1) requires the agency to state the objective and
need for the rule. As stated in the preamble and in the proposed rule
(March 29, 2006; 71 FR 15680), one objective of this final rulemaking
is to update necessary equipment and protocols that vessel operators in
the BLL fishery must possess, maintain, and utilize for the safe
handling, release and disentanglement of sea turtles and other non-
target species. Another objective of this final rule is to implement
measures that are complementary to CFMC-recommended measures that NMFS
implemented on October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62073).
Section 604(a)(2) requires the Agency to summarize significant
issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a summary
of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a statement of any
changes made in the rule as a result of such comments. NMFS received
several comments on the proposed rule and draft EA during the public
comment period. A summary of these comments and the Agency's responses
are included in this final rule. NMFS did not receive any comments
specific to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), but did
receive a limited number of comments related to economic issues and
concerns. These comments are responded to with the other comments (see
Comments 4, 5, 6, and 13). The specific economic concerns are also
summarized here.
NMFS received several comments regarding the estimated costs of
procuring the required dehooking equipment, both to individuals and to
the shark BLL industry as a whole, including: NMFS should emphasize
that BLL operators could reduce costs of required equipment by making
most of the equipment themselves; and a significant portion of the 284
vessels already have PLL permits and already have the equipment,
therefore the estimated economic impact associated with the preferred
alternative of $71,900 to $138,400 seems high.
NMFS has stated that BLL operators may construct dehooking
equipment as long as it meets design standards at 50 CFR 635.21(c).
NMFS also assumes that numerous BLL participants already possess some
of the equipment required by this rulemaking which would minimize
economic impacts of this final rulemaking. NMFS estimates the number of
vessel owners that could potentially be impacted by this rulemaking to
be 284. This estimate is derived because 284 of the 555 incidental and
directed shark permit holders do not have a directed or incidental
swordfish permit. An incidental or directed swordfish permit would be
necessary to fish with PLL gear and these vessels would already be
required to possess, maintain and utilize the equipment and protocols
prescribed in this final rulemaking. NMFS agrees that this may be an
overestimate, as it does not account for latent effort in BLL and PLL
fisheries. However, whether permit holders had been inactive in the
recent past would not exempt them from the need to procure the required
equipment before fishing in the future.
Finally, a comment was received asking NMFS if they were going to
subsidize or pay for the purchase of dehooking equipment.
NMFS does not have any plans to subsidize the purchase of dehooking
equipment for participants in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery. The costs
of compliance with this rulemaking can be minimized by fisherman making
some of the required equipment themselves, provided it meets the design
standards in 50 CFR 635.21(c) and outlined in Appendix A of the EA for
this rulemaking.
No changes were made in the rule as a result of these comments. The
comments provided did not warrant additional means of minimizing
economic impacts while meeting the objectives of this rule.
Section 604(a)(3) requires the Agency to describe and estimate the
number of small entities to which the final rule will apply. NMFS
considers all permit holders to be small entities as reflected in the
Small Business Administrations (SBA) criteria (gross receipts less than
$3.5 million, the SBA size standard for defining a small versus large
business entity). As of October 2005, there were approximately 235
directed shark permit holders and 320 incidental shark permit holders
for a total of 555 permit holders who are authorized to fish for
sharks. NMFS considers the 284 shark permit holders that do not also
hold swordfish permits to be the universe of permit holders that will
be affected by this final rulemaking.
The complementary measures implemented by the CFMC that are
included in this rulemaking for Atlantic HMS fishermen will result in
six, year-round, BLL gear closures. This could potentially impact all
555 directed and incidental shark fishermen. However, NMFS assumes that
shark fishermen residing outside of the Caribbean region would not
travel to this region to target sharks due to the extensive distances
involved. Therefore, only one incidental shark fishing permit holder
and one shark dealer permit holder (both in the U.S. Virgin Islands)
may be directly
[[Page 5640]]
affected by these measures. There are no shark limited access permit
holders or shark dealer permit holders in Puerto Rico.
Other sectors of HMS fisheries such as dealers, processors, bait
houses, and gear manufacturers, some of which are considered small
entities, might be indirectly affected by the final regulations.
However, the final rule does not apply directly to them. Rather it
applies only to permit holders and fishermen.
Section 604(a)(4) requires the agency to describe the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the
final rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities
which will be subject to the requirements of the report or record. The
preferred alternative for additional requirements for safe handling and
release of sea turtle and other non-target species in this document
will result in additional equipment and compliance requirements for
vessels fishing with shark BLL gear. However, there will be no change
in projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Section 604(a)(5) requires the Agency to describe the steps taken
to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes.
Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general
categories of ``significant'' alternatives that would assist an agency
in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of
alternatives are:
1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities;
2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and
4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.
As noted earlier, NMFS considers all permit holders to be small
entities. In order to meet the objectives of this final rule,
consistent with Magunson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the ESA, NMFS cannot
exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for
small entities. Additionally, the handling and release gear
requirements would not be effective with different compliance
requirements. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed which fall
under the first and fourth categories described above. In addition,
none of the alternatives considered would result in modifications to
reporting or compliance requirements (category two above). All
alternatives considered are based on design standards rather than
performance standards; fishermen would be in compliance with the final
rulemaking as long as they possess gear and utilize gear that conforms
to the design specifications located in Appendix A of the EA for this
rulemaking for the safe handling, release, and disentanglement of
protected resources. Any item may be constructed or purchased and used
by fisherman provided that it meets the design standards listed at 50
CFR 635.21(c). When new items are certified, a notice in the Federal
Register will be published. As described below, NMFS analyzed three
different alternatives in this final rulemaking and provides
justification for selection of the preferred alternative to achieve the
desired objectives.
The alternatives include: Alternative 1 (A1), maintaining the
current requirements in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery for safe
handling, release, and disentanglement of protected resources (status
quo); Alternative 2 (A2), requiring Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL
gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize certain safe handling,
release, and disentanglement of protected resources gears based on
freeboard height; and Alternative 3 (A3), the preferred alternative,
requiring Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess,
maintain, and utilize all the equipment that is currently required for
the HMS PLL fishery regardless of vessel freeboard height.
A1 would maintain status quo in the Atlantic shark BLL fishery for
safe handling, release, and disentanglement of protected resources. The
costs for A1 (approximately $120-$370) represent the cost BLL fishermen
have already incurred to comply with HMS BLL regulations for the safe
handling, release, and disentanglement of sea turtles, smalltooth
sawfish, and other protected resources. Additional economic impacts
would not be expected relative to the status quo for the fishery.
However, adverse economic impacts could result if no action is taken to
reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality because continued operation of the
shark fishery is contingent upon compliance with the 2003 BiOp. Sea
turtles could have significantly lower post-release survival if hooks
and associated fishing gear are not removed; removing fishing hooks and
associated gear could help reduce post-release mortality and help the
fishery stay below the incidental take limits for the fishery. This
could avoid more restrictive regulations to reduce sea turtle bycatch.
The economic impact of A2 depends on freeboard height of the
Atlantic shark BLL vessel. The estimated costs range from $152 for low-
end priced equipment on vessels with a freeboard four feet (1.22 m) or
less to $477 for high-end priced equipment on vessels with a freeboard
height greater than four feet (these costs do not include current
requirements for the BLL fishery as outlined in A1). The immediate
economic impacts of A2 are slightly less than those of the preferred
alternative. However, unlike A3, which will require Atlantic shark
fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain, and utilize all
the equipment that is currently required for the HMS PLL fishery, under
A2, BLL fishermen and crew would not be able to move to the PLL fishery
as easily because they would not have all the required dehooking
equipment for that fishery. Therefore, in the long-term, under A3
Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear will not have to purchase
different equipment in order to participate in the PLL fishery.
The dehooking equipment requirement under A2 would depend on the
vessel's freeboard height, as certain long-handled equipment would not
be necessary for vessels with a smaller freeboard (4 feet (1.22 m) or
less). The 4 foot or less freeboard height was chosen as the threshold
for not needing long-handled dehookers because it is assumed that the
handle length of a short-handled dehooker in addition to a fisherman's
arm length would be sufficient for reaching and dehooking non-boated
sea turtles and other protected resources. However, the majority of sea
turtles that would interact with Atlantic BLL fisheries are large
juvenile loggerhead and adult leatherback sea turtles. Large juvenile
loggerheads and adult leatherback sea turtles would most likely be too
large to be boated, requiring dehooking to occur while the sea turtles
remain in the water (i.e., small sea turtles can be boated and short-
handled dehookers can be used to remove hooks). If long-handled
dehookers might facilitate improved hook removal, release, or
disentanglement of larger turtles (and research in the NED for the PLL
fishery has shown that some turtles released alive may subsequently die
from hook ingestion, trailing gear, or injuries suffered when entangled
in gear), A2 would have less of an ecological benefit compared to A3.
A3, the preferred alternative, will require Atlantic shark
fishermen with BLL gear onboard to possess, maintain,
[[Page 5641]]
and utilize all the equipment that is currently required for the HMS
PLL fishery regardless of vessel freeboard height. NMFS preferred this
alternative because it would improve post-hooking survival of sea
turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other protected resources and maintain
consistency between the PLL and BLL fisheries. This alternative would
have positive ecological impacts and negative short-term economic
impacts. A3 is estimated to have an economic impact of a minimum of
$253 to $487 for vessels with a freeboard height of four feet (1.22 m)
or less. This range represents the range of low-end and high-end priced
gears (see Table 6.2 and Table 6.4 in Chapter 6). Larger economic
impacts are expected for Atlantic shark fishermen with vessels with
freeboard heights greater than four feet (and costs will be dependent
on freeboard height due to variable costs of long-handled dehooking
gears; Table 6.2).
However, reducing mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and
other protected resources is an integral part of maintaining compliance
with the relevant BiOp. Consistent with the October 29, 2003, BiOp,
NMFS is required to ensure that fishermen handle protected species
taken during fishing activities in such a way as to increase their
chances of survival. The final rule that implemented NMFS-approved
dehooking, disentanglement, and release gear and protocols on all
vessels with PLL onboard represents the most up to date scientific
information regarding protocols for maximizing post-hooking survival of
protected species. Because of the similarities between these fisheries
and the fact that many vessel operators and owners fish with both BLL
and PLL gear, NMFS is selecting the alternative (A3) that would enable
Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to follow the protocols
and possess the equipment necessary for the PLL fishery, easing
determination of compliance for both fishermen and enforcement. This
could also provide fishermen with the flexibility to change between PLL
and BLL gear without additional cost. The final rule will allow
Atlantic shark fishermen with BLL gear onboard to construct additional
equipment themselves provided it meets design specifications. Such
construction could reduce economic impacts. In addition, most fishermen
have bolt cutters, needle nose pliers, monofilament cutters, boat
hooks, and some mouth gags (i.e., the wooden handle of a wire brush,
hank of rope, etc) already onboard their vessel, so these items would
not have to be purchased. The cost of dehooking gear and time and
effort involved in properly dehooking animals may be offset by gaining
efficiency in not having to re-rig fishing equipment, and economic gain
from retrieving hooks. Such gain could be substantial given an average
price for a circle hook is $2.24 (ranging from $0.30 to $7.00 each),
and an average price of a J-hook is $2.70 (ranging from $0.50 to $7.50
each) (NMFS, 2005).
The measures implemented by the CFMC are intended to minimize
adverse impacts to EFH (coral and hard bottom habitat), to the extent
practicable, as a result of bottom tending gear. This final rule will
implement six closures off the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico,
preventing HMS permit holders with BLL gear onboard their vessels, from
deploying, or fishing with any fishing gear in these closed areas.
These closures are expected to have de minimus impacts on HMS permit
holders in the Caribbean region. There are no other alternatives that
would achieve the objective of minimizing adverse impacts of bottom
fishing on EFH. Additional detail and analysis is included in the FSEIS
for the Comprehensive Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the
U.S. Caribbean and the final rule implementing these measures for
council managed fisheries.
This final rule contains no new collection of information
requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under PRA.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing Vessels, Foreign Relations, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
Dated: February 1, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223, chapter II, and
part 635, chapter VI, are amended as follows:
CHAPTER II
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 223.206, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 223.206 Exceptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) In addition to the provisions of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section, a person aboard a vessel in the Atlantic, including the
Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, that has pelagic or bottom
longline gear on board and that has been issued, or is required to
have, a limited access permit for highly migratory species under Sec.
635.4 of this title, must comply with the handling and release
requirements specified in Sec. 635.21 of this title.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VI
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
0
3. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 635.21, paragraph (d)(3)(iv) is removed and paragraphs
(a)(3), (d)(1), (d)(3)(i), and (d)(3)(ii) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.21 Gear operation and deployment restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) All vessels that have pelagic or bottom longline gear onboard
and that have been issued, or are required to have, a limited access
swordfish, shark, or tuna longline category permit for use in the
Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must
possess inside the wheelhouse the document provided by NMFS entitled
``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with Minimal
Injury,'' and must also post inside the wheelhouse the sea turtle
handling and release guidelines provided by NMFS.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) If bottom longline gear is onboard a vessel issued a permit
under this part, persons aboard that vessel may not fish or deploy any
type of fishing gear in the following areas:
(i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed areas from January 1 through July
31 each calendar year, except that in 2007 the mid-Atlantic shark
closed area will be closed from January 1 through June 30 and may open
in July, contingent upon available quota; and
(ii) The areas designated at Sec. 622.33(a) of this title, year-
round.
* * * * *
[[Page 5642]]
(3) * * *
(i) Possession and use of required mitigation gear. The equipment
listed in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section must be carried on board
and must be used to handle, release, and disentangle hooked or
entangled sea turtles, prohibited sharks, or smalltooth sawfish in
accordance with requirements specified in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) Handling and release requirements. Sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear, as required by paragraph (d)(3)(i)of this section,
must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtles as stated
in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This mitigation gear should
also be employed to disengage any hooked or entangled species of
prohibited sharks as listed in Category (D) of Table 1 of Appendix A of
this part. If a smalltooth sawfish is caught, the fish should be kept
in the water while maintaining water flow over the gills and examined
for research tags and the line should be cut as close to the hook as
possible. Dehooking devices should not be used to release smalltooth
sawfish.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 635.71, paragraph (a)(33) is revised as follows:
Sec. 635.71 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(33) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with
pelagic or bottom longline gear on board without carrying the required
sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, as specified at Sec.
635.21(c)(5)(i) for pelagic longline gear and Sec. 635.21(d)(3)(i) for
bottom longline gear. This equipment must be utilized in accordance
with Sec. 635.21(c)(5)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii) for pelagic and bottom
longline gear, respectively.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-2011 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S