[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37647-37651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15348]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 120416016-2151-01]
RIN 0648-BB96


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Silky Shark Management 
Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule would implement the International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendation 11-08, which 
prohibits retaining, transshipping, or landing of silky sharks 
(Carcharhinus falciformis) caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. 
In order to improve domestic enforcement capabilities, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service is also proposing to prohibit the storing,

[[Page 37648]]

selling and purchasing of the species. This rule would affect the 
commercial HMS pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species 
in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. 
This rule would not affect commercial fishermen fishing for sharks with 
bottom longline, gillnet, or handgear; nor would the rule affect 
recreational fishermen as harvesting silky sharks is already prohibited 
in the recreational fishery. This action implements the ICCAT 
recommendation, consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 
(ATCA), and furthers domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received by 5 p.m., local time, on July 
23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2012-0116, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To 
submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the ``submit a 
comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0116 in the keyword search. 
Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and 
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right of that line.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Sarah de Flesco or Karyl 
Brewster-Geisz at National Marine Fisheries Service, Highly Migratory 
Species Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910.
     Fax: 301-713-1917; Attn: Sarah de Flesco.
    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above 
methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and 
considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the 
sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will 
accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you 
wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be 
accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 
formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah de Flesco or Karyl Brewster-
Geisz by phone: 301-427-8503 or by fax: 301-713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Atlantic shark fisheries are 
managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 
et seq. The U.S. Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species fisheries are 
managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, 
16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and 
appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. ICCAT is responsible 
for the conservation of tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic 
Ocean and adjacent seas. ICCAT recommendations are binding on 
Contracting Parties, unless Parties object pursuant to the treaty. All 
ICCAT recommendations are available on the ICCAT Web site at http://www.iccat.int/en/. The authority to issue regulations under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to 
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA. The implementing 
regulations for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) are at 50 CFR 
part 635.
    At the 22nd Regular Meeting of ICCAT in 2011, ICCAT adopted 
Recommendation 11-08, which requires the United States to initiate 
rulemaking in order to fulfill obligations as a Contracting Party to 
the Convention. The ``Recommendation on the Conservation of Silky 
Sharks Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries (11-08),'' requires 
fishing vessels operating in ICCAT fisheries to release all silky 
sharks whether dead or alive, and prohibits retaining on board, 
transshipping, or landing any part or whole carcass of a silky shark 
(Carcharhinus falciformis). The recommendation cites the fact that 
silky sharks were ranked as the species with the highest degree of 
vulnerability in the 2010 ecological risk assessment for Atlantic 
sharks.
    In this proposed rule, NMFS considers changes to the Atlantic HMS 
regulations at 50 CFR part 635, consistent with the ICCAT 
recommendation and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Such changes would affect 
only commercial vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard that fish 
for tunas and tuna-like species. Harvesting silky sharks is already 
prohibited in the recreational fishery. While silky sharks could be 
caught on handgear, bottom longline, or gillnet gear commercially, 
these gears target sharks directly and are not used in association with 
ICCAT fisheries; therefore, we are not considering action to prohibit 
the retention of silky sharks from these gears.
    We prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory 
Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA), which present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, 
and economic impacts of each alternative contained in this proposed 
rule. The complete list of alternatives and related analyses are 
provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, and are not repeated here in their 
entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed 
rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    In this action, we propose to prohibit the retention of silky 
sharks on Atlantic HMS commercially-permitted vessels that have pelagic 
longline gear on board. Additionally, we propose to prohibit the 
storing, selling, or purchasing of silky sharks to ensure domestic 
enforcement ability.
    Silky sharks were last assessed as part of the Large Coastal Shark 
complex, which was assessed during the Southeast Data, Assessment, and 
Review (SEDAR) 11 process. Silky sharks are part of the complex, and 
the stock status of silky sharks is unknown.
    Silky sharks were included in the 2010 ecological risk assessment 
conducted for the ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. 
In the risk assessment, silky sharks were ranked as the Atlantic shark 
species with the highest degree of vulnerability to fishing. Given the 
low productivity and high susceptibility of silky sharks to pelagic 
longline fisheries as noted in the ecological risk assessment, the 
implementation of the ICCAT silky shark recommendation could benefit 
the status of this stock by reducing mortality in the Atlantic Ocean.
    We considered three alternatives for the proposed action. 
Alternative 1 would maintain the status quo and would not implement 
ICCAT Recommendation 11-08. Alternative 2 would prohibit retaining, 
transshipping, and landing silky sharks. The proposed action is 
alternative 3, which would prohibit retaining, transshipping, and 
landing as well as prohibiting the storing, selling, and purchasing of 
silky sharks.
    An analysis of the 2006 through 2010 HMS logbook data, which covers 
the HMS pelagic longline fishery, indicates that under status quo 
(alternative 1) on average a total of 60 silky sharks are kept per year 
and a total of 1,417 are

[[Page 37649]]

discarded dead (742) or alive (676) each year in U.S. fisheries. Thus, 
from these figures, only about 4 percent of all silky sharks caught by 
pelagic longline vessels are retained.
    Under both alternative 2 and alternative 3 (the proposed 
alternative), all live and dead silky sharks would have to be released 
by pelagic longline fishermen. According to the pelagic longline 
observer program and HMS logbook data, on average each year, 60 silky 
sharks were retained, of which 17 were caught alive and 43 caught dead. 
Therefore, under these two alternatives, of the 60 silky sharks kept 
per year, 17 would be released alive. Although silky sharks are not 
caught in large numbers in the pelagic longline fishery (i.e., less 
than 12 percent of pelagic longline trips between 2006-2010 caught 
silky sharks), these alternatives would have minor, beneficial 
ecological impacts for silky sharks because mortality would be reduced 
somewhat in the pelagic longline fishery.
    Under both alterative 2 and alternative 3 (the proposed action), 
approximately 785 would be discarded dead (43 sharks discarded from 
those that would be retained under the status quo plus 742 that would 
be discarded dead under the status quo). The actual number of silky 
sharks expected to be caught (1,477 per year on average) in the pelagic 
longline fishery is not expected to change as a result of this action. 
Because few silky sharks are currently retained in proportion to the 
total number of silky sharks caught, the prohibition against retention 
would have minor beneficial ecological impacts although it may provide 
some additional incentive to avoid the species. Any reduction of 
mortality for silky sharks could be expected to also have beneficial 
impacts due to low productivity and high susceptibility of silky sharks 
to pelagic longline fisheries as noted in the 2010 ICCAT ecological 
risk assessment.
    Atlantic HMS commercial permit holders with pelagic longline gear 
on board would no longer be authorized to retain silky sharks and could 
experience minor, adverse socioeconomic impacts. The current HMS 
pelagic longline fleet consists of 242 vessels as of October 2011. 
However, according to HMS logbook data, on average, seven pelagic 
longline vessels combined landed 60 silky sharks weighing 2,671 lb per 
year from 2006 through 2009. Using the median, ex-vessel price per 
pound of $0.75 for silky shark meat and $11.11 for shark fins, this is 
equivalent to $3,392 ($1,489 for fins and $1,903 for meat) in average 
annual gross revenues from landings of silky sharks from pelagic 
longline vessels or $485 per vessel that landed silky sharks. Because 
the proposed action would prohibit the retention of silky sharks from 
pelagic longline vessels, it would likely result in minor, adverse 
socioeconomic impacts to commercial pelagic longline fishermen because, 
even though there are small amounts of silky sharks landed, fishermen 
would no longer be able to land this species and could potentially lose 
annual revenues of $3,392 for all vessels or $485 per vessel. However, 
it is unlikely that commercial fishermen would alter fishing practices 
for tuna and tuna-like species, because silky shark landings constitute 
such a small portion of pelagic longline catch, landings, and revenues.
    Under alternative 3 (the proposed action), the pelagic longline 
fishery would be prohibited against the storing, selling, and 
purchasing of silky sharks in addition to prohibiting the retaining, 
transshipping, and landing of silky sharks. The proposed action would 
provide consistency with current regulations for oceanic whitetip and 
hammerhead (except for Sphyrna tiburo) sharks in the commercial pelagic 
longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species and would simplify 
compliance, for fishermen and for dealers, as well as enforcement. The 
measureable ecological impacts of the proposed action (alternative 3) 
remain the same as alternative 2. However, the proposed action might 
have additional ecological benefits by reducing mortality of silky 
sharks. Additionally, under the proposed action, Atlantic HMS 
commercial permit holders with pelagic longline gear on board would no 
longer be authorized to retain silky sharks and could experience minor, 
adverse socioeconomic impacts. The measureable economic and social 
impacts of the proposed action are similar to those of alternative 2. 
However, under the proposed action, a pelagic longline vessel operator 
would not be allowed to store or sell silky shark products and a dealer 
could not buy silky sharks from a pelagic longline vessel owner or 
operator. Adding additional prohibitions beyond those called for under 
alternative 2 would also be consistent with the approach we have taken 
for oceanic whitetip sharks and scalloped, smooth and great hammerhead 
sharks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-
like species. We feel that adding the prohibitions against storing, 
selling and purchasing silky sharks under the specified circumstances 
would make them easier to remember by making the regulations consistent 
with those in place for oceanic whitetip and scalloped, smooth and 
great hammerhead sharks, and thus, would help fishermen and dealers and 
improve compliance. The addition would also allow for enforcement of 
the prohibition even in cases where the violation is not detected at 
sea or during landing. Finally, the extension of the prohibition 
against the sale and purchase should help to eliminate the market for 
silky sharks and encourage compliance with the prohibition on 
retention. Although there would be some minor adverse socioeconomic 
impacts under the proposed action due to a slight loss of revenue by 
pelagic longline vessel operators similar to that of alternative 2, the 
proposed action would provide minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts by 
providing a rule that is consistent with the current regulations and 
easier with which to comply and enforce.
    In conclusion, the proposed action of prohibiting the retention of 
silky sharks in the pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like 
species is likely to have minor beneficial ecological impacts because 
of the potential reduction in mortality, and minor adverse 
socioeconomic impacts because this species constitutes a low percentage 
of the total pelagic longline landings.

Public Hearing

    Comments on this proposed rule, Draft Environmental Assessment, and 
Finding of No Significant Impact may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax, and comments may also be submitted 
at a public hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES). NMFS solicits comments 
on this proposed rule by July 23, 2012. NMFS will hold a public hearing 
via conference call for this proposed rule. The hearing location is 
physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign 
language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to 
Sarah de Flesco at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Location                        Date                    Time                     Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference call....................  July 9, 2012..........  1-3 p.m...............  Conference line: 800-857-
                                                                                      3903; Passcode: 6059057.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37650]]

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public 
hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each 
public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules 
(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be 
called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to 
speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and 
attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative 
will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of 
the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of 
the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to 
respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they will be asked to 
leave the hearing.

Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further 
consideration after public comment.
    NMFS prepared an environmental assessment that discusses the impact 
on the environment as a result of this rule. In this proposed action, 
NMFS is considering prohibitions against retaining, transshipping, 
landing, storing, selling, or purchasing of silky sharks in the 
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species. A 
copy of the environmental assessment is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA describes the 
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and 
the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this 
section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 
summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available 
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 
amendments to implement recommendations of ICCAT pursuant to ATCA and 
to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act.
    In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the objectives of this proposed rulemaking are to consider changes 
to the HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635 consistent with an ICCAT 
recommendation. NMFS proposes to implement the 2011 ICCAT silky shark 
recommendation in the Atlantic HMS fisheries that target tuna and tuna-
like species because NMFS considers these fisheries to be ICCAT-managed 
fisheries. The regulatory changes would affect HMS vessels that catch 
sharks in association with tuna and tuna-like species on commercial 
vessels that deploy pelagic longline gear. This proposed action is 
necessary to implement an ICCAT recommendation pursuant to ATCA. In 
compliance with the ATCA, NMFS is required to implement domestic 
regulations consistent with recommendations adopted by ICCAT as 
necessary and appropriate.
    Section 603(b)(3) requires Federal agencies to provide an estimate 
of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. In 
accordance with the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, 
NMFS used the following thresholds to determine if an entity regulated 
under this action would be considered a small entity: average annual 
receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting, average annual 
receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats, 100 or fewer 
employees for wholesale dealers, or 500 or fewer employees for seafood 
processors. Using these thresholds, NMFS determined that all HMS permit 
holders are small entities. Specifically, this proposed action would 
apply to all participants in the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline 
commercial fishery that targets tuna and tuna-like species. As of 
October 2011, 242 vessels held a commercial Tuna Longline permit and 
can be reasonably assumed to use pelagic longline gear. All of the 
vessels holding these permits could be affected by this action.
    This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4)). 
Similarly, this proposed rule would not conflict, duplicate, or overlap 
with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, 
dealers, and other participants in this fishery must comply with a 
number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. 
These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, 
the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 
the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS does 
not believe that the proposed regulations would duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.
    Under section 603(c), agencies are required to describe any 
alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives 
and which minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are 
discussed below and in the draft Environmental Assessment for the 
proposed action. Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (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.
    In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or 
change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all 
the entities affected are considered small entities. Thus, there are no 
alternatives discussed that fall under the first, second, and fourth 
categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or 
design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of 
this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third 
category. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different 
alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationale for 
identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired 
objective.
    NMFS prepared this IRFA to analyze the impacts on small entities of 
the alternatives for implementing the ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 for 
pelagic longline vessels that target tuna and tuna-like species, all of 
which are considered small entities. NMFS considered and analyzed three 
alternatives including Alternative 1 (no action); Alternative 2 
(implementing ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 in the

[[Page 37651]]

commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species); 
and Alternative 3 (implementing ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 and 
additional prohibitions against storing, selling and purchasing of 
silky sharks in the commercial pelagic longline fishery for tuna and 
tuna-like species).
    Under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, there would be no 
additional economic impacts to HMS pelagic longline vessels fishing for 
tuna and tuna-like species. Commercial pelagic longline vessels that 
fish for tuna and tuna-like species that are also currently authorized 
to land silky sharks would be able to continue that practice. 
Commercial pelagic longline fishermen would continue to be able to land 
silky sharks and could potentially earn $485 per vessel. Additionally, 
each vessel is predicted to earn a total of $190,986 per year in 
revenue from swordfish and tuna ($96,525 from swordfish and $94,461 
from tuna). Therefore, revenues from silky shark sales are minor (<1 
percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue.
    Under Alternative 2, pelagic longline vessel operators and owners 
could not retain, transship, or land silky sharks, consistent with 
ICCAT Recommendation 11-08. Thus, on average, each vessel would lose 
approximately $485 annually in gross revenues, which is minor (<1 
percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue from swordfish and 
tunas ($190,986 total revenues).
    Under Alternative 3, pelagic longline vessel owners and operators 
could not retain, transship, land, sell, or store silky sharks, 
consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 11-08 and other domestic 
regulations. This alternative is essentially the same as alternative 2 
but would improve domestic enforcement capabilities. Thus, on average, 
each vessel would lose approximately $485 annually in gross revenues, 
which is minor (<1 percent) compared to each vessel's overall revenue 
from swordfish and tunas ($190,986 total revenues). We prefer 
Alternative 3 at this time, because it would implement ICCAT 
Recommendation 11-08, would likely have minor ecological benefits, 
would have minor socioeconomic impacts on the pelagic longline fishery, 
and would provide enhanced enforcement abilities. Additionally, we 
believe this alternative would be unlikely to change fishing practices 
or effort.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: June 19, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed to 
be amended as follows:

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In Sec.  635.21, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel 
may not possess, retain, transship, land, sell, or store silky sharks, 
oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead 
sharks.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  635.24, paragraph (a)(9) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.24  Commercial retention limits for sharks and swordfish.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (9) Notwithstanding other provisions in this subsection, 
possession, retention, transshipment, landing, sale, or storage of 
silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, and scalloped, smooth, and great 
hammerhead sharks is prohibited on vessels issued a permit under this 
part that have pelagic longline gear on board.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  635.31, paragraph (c)(6) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.31  Restrictions on sale and purchase.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) A dealer issued a permit under this part may not purchase silky 
sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great 
hammerhead sharks from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel with 
pelagic longline gear on board. A dealer issued a permit under this 
part may not purchase oceanic whitetip sharks or scalloped, smooth, or 
great hammerhead sharks from the owner of a fishing vessel issued both 
a HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit when tuna, 
swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel, offloaded from the 
vessel, or being offloaded from the vessel.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  635.71, paragraph (d)(19) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (19) Retain, possess, transship, land, store, sell or purchase 
silky sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great 
hammerhead sharks as specified in Sec.  635.21(c)(1)(ii), Sec.  
635.22(a)(2), Sec.  635.24, and Sec.  635.31(c)(6).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-15348 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P