Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark Management Measures, 75122-75134 [06-9667]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75122-75134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9667]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 060925247-6323-02; I.D. 091106B]
RIN 0648-AU84


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark 
Management Measures

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

ACTION: Final rule and temporary rule for emergency action; request for 
comments on temporary rule for emergency action.

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

SUMMARY: This combined final and temporary rule for emergency action 
establishes the 2007 first trimester season quotas for large coastal 
sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks and 
publishes the opening and closing dates for the LCS fishery based on 
adjustments to the trimester quotas. The final rule also opens the 
existing mid-Atlantic shark closed area in July 2007, pending available 
quota. This combined rule is needed to address over- and underharvests 
that occurred in the Atlantic shark fishery in the first trimester of 
2006.

DATES: Final Rule: The pelagic shark quotas, North Atlantic regional 
LCS and SCS quotas, North Atlantic regional LCS season, South Atlantic 
regional LCS quota and season opening and closing dates are provided in 
Table 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    The revision to the mid-Atlantic shark closed area under Sec.  
635.21(d)(1) is effective January 1, 2007.
    Temporary Rule for Emergency Action: The Gulf of Mexico regional 
LCS and SCS quotas, Gulf of Mexico regional LCS season, and South 
Atlantic regional SCS quota are being taken via a temporary rule for 
emergency action and are effective on January 1, 2007, until June 12, 
2007.
    The Atlantic commercial shark quotas and fishing season opening and 
closing dates for the temporary rule for emergency action as set forth 
in this document are provided in Table 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.
    Comments on the temporary rule for emergency action must be 
received no later than February 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: For copies of the Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory 
Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA), 
please contact Michael Clark at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 
MD 20910, or at (301) 713-1917 (fax). Copies are also available from 
the HMS website at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. Written comments 
on the temporary rule for emergency action portions of this action may 
be submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species Management 
Division via:
     E-mail: SF1.091106B@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line 
the following identifier: I.D. 091106B.
     Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
Please mark on the outside of the envelope ``Comments on the Emergency 
Rule for 2007 1st Trimester Season Lengths and Quotas.''
     Fax: 301-713-1917.
     Federal e-Rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Clark or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 
by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). NMFS recently finalized a Consolidated Highly Migratory 
Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) that consolidated and 
replaced previous FMPs for Atlantic Billfish and Atlantic Tunas, 
Swordfish, and Sharks. The HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 
CFR part 635.
    Currently, the Atlantic shark annual quotas, with the exception of 
pelagic sharks, are split among three regions based on historic 
landings. Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii) and (iv), the annual 
LCS quota (1,017 mt dw) is split among the three regions as follows: 52 
percent to the Gulf of Mexico, 41 percent to the South Atlantic, and 7 
percent to the North Atlantic. The

[[Page 75123]]

annual SCS quota (454 mt dw) is split among the three regions as 
follows: 10 percent to the Gulf of Mexico, 87 percent to the South 
Atlantic, and 3 percent to the North Atlantic. The regional quotas for 
LCS and SCS are divided equally between the trimester seasons in the 
South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, and according to historical 
landings of 4, 88, and 8 percent for LCS, and 1, 9, and 90 percent for 
SCS in the first, second, and third trimester seasons, respectively, in 
the North Atlantic. Consistent with 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii) and (vi), 
any over- or underharvest in a given region from the 2006 first 
trimester season will be carried over to the 2007 first trimester 
season in that region.
    On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58778), NMFS published a draft EA and 
proposed rule that examined the regional quotas and proposed season 
lengths for the 2007 first trimester season for LCS managed under the 
HMS FMP. This rule was based on dealer reports received by August 24, 
2006, indicating that approximately 230 percent (326.1 mt dw) of the 
LCS for the South Atlantic region had been reported harvested during 
the first trimester of 2006. At that time, the Gulf of Mexico and North 
Atlantic regions had reported approximately 46 and 6 percent of their 
LCS quotas, respectively, as being harvested.
    On October 20, 2006, NMFS was informed that due to late Federal 
shark dealer reports, significant landings of LCS and SCS from the Gulf 
of Mexico region during the first trimester in 2006 may not have been 
included in previous published landings estimates and the proposed 
rule. On November 1, 2006, NMFS published a second Federal Register 
notice (71 FR 64213) extending the comment period on the proposed rule 
to November 13, 2006. On November 13, 2006, NMFS published a revised 
shark landings update and extended the comment period for the proposed 
rule to November 17, 2006 (71 FR 66154). As of November 13, 2006, 
landings estimates indicated that 151.1 percent (336.6 mt dw) of the 
LCS quota and 527 percent (78 mt dw) of the SCS quota for the Gulf of 
Mexico region had been landed during the first trimester of 2006. 
Additionally, landings estimates for the South Atlantic region 
increased to a total of 287.2 percent (393.1 mt dw) of the LCS quota 
and 15.6 percent (44.5 mt dw) of the SCS quota for the first trimester 
of 2006. The North Atlantic region harvested only 3.8 percent (0.2 mt 
dw) of its LCS quota and 0 percent of the SCS quota during the first 
trimester in 2006.
    To address the overharvests in the South Atlantic and Gulf of 
Mexico regions and the underharvest in the North Atlantic region, NMFS 
is implementing LCS and SCS management measures outlined in Table 1 via 
this combined final and temporary rule for emergency action. These 
measures are necessary to ensure that over- and underharvests from 2006 
are accounted for and social and economic impacts of the over- and 
underharvests are analyzed. The overall annual baseline quota for LCS 
and SCS has not been affected.

                  Table 1. Quota and season management actions that will be taken for Atlantic sharks in different management regions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Region
             Species Complex              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      North Atlantic                       South Atlantic                       Gulf of Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Coastal Sharks                                               Final Rule                           Final Rule      Temp. rule for emergency action
Small Coastal Sharks                                               Final Rule      Temp. rule for emergency action      Temp. rule for emergency action
All Pelagic Sharks                                                                           Final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two of the five alternatives that were initially analyzed in the 
draft EA and proposed rule no longer apply. These were alternative 2 
(to adjust the South Atlantic regional LCS quota for the first 
trimester by transferring up to 10 percent of the 2006 first trimester 
quota from the Gulf of Mexico region) and alternative 5 (to transfer 
LCS underharvest from the Gulf of Mexico's first trimester of 2006 to 
the South Atlantic region in 2007). Since an underharvest of LCS in the 
Gulf of Mexico region during the 2006 first trimester no longer exists, 
quota cannot be transferred in 2007 to cover the overharvest of LCS in 
the South Atlantic region during the 2006 first trimester. The 
alternatives that were analyzed (former alternatives 1, 3, and 4) have 
been renumbered as alternatives A1, A2, and A3. The renumbered 
alternatives have been carried forward and analyzed in the final EA. 
NMFS is finalizing preferred alternative A2, which was also the 
preferred alternative in the proposed rule. The preamble of the October 
5, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 58778) contains the alternatives that 
have been carried forward and analyzed in the final EA and final rule 
and is not repeated here. The final two alternatives (Alternatives A4 
and A5) would have modified the percent of the annual baseline quota 
each region received based on recent harvest (A4) or would have spread 
the impacts of the current overharvest out over several years (A5).
    Due to the overharvest of LCS and SCS in the Gulf of Mexico during 
the 2006 first trimester, NMFS analyzed four new alternatives to 
address the LCS quota and season length in the Gulf of Mexico region 
and SCS quotas in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. One 
alternative (alternative B1), if selected, would maintain existing 
procedures for addressing regional trimester over- and underharvests 
for SCS when establishing the regional quotas for the first trimester 
of 2007 (status quo). This alternative would close the Gulf of Mexico 
regional SCS fishery during the 2007 first trimester due to the 
extensive overharvest in the 2006 first trimester. It would also apply 
the underharvests in the first trimester of 2006 to the 2007 first 
trimester for the North and South Atlantic regions, resulting in 2007 
first trimester quotas of 18.8 mt dw and 371.6 mt dw, respectively. 
NMFS did not select this alternative because it would cause negative 
economic impacts on the Gulf of Mexico region by not allowing a SCS 
fishery during the 2007 first trimester.
    The preferred alternative (alternative B2) transfers 63.2 mt dw of 
the South Atlantic's regional SCS underharvest during the 2006 first 
trimester to the Gulf of Mexico region in the 2007 first trimester. 
This gives the Gulf of Mexico region a 15.1 mt dw SCS quota and affords 
them a SCS fishery that would have otherwise not been possible. NMFS 
prefers this alternative because it has positive economic impacts in 
the Gulf of Mexico region. In addition, NMFS does not anticipate that 
the quota transfer in this alternative will affect the South Atlantic 
region since the region has never caught their full SCS quota in a 
given trimester, and NMFS is still adjusting their quota with 
significant

[[Page 75124]]

underharvest of SCS during each trimester. Finally, NMFS anticipates 
minimal ecological impacts by the quota transfer, given the similar 
catch composition of SCS between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
regions. Unlike blacktip sharks, SCS are not thought to exhibit 
population structure between the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.
    The third new alternative (alternative B3), if selected, would 
transfer 126.4 mt dw of the South Atlantic's regional SCS underharvest 
during the 2006 first trimester to the Gulf of Mexico region in the 
2007 first trimester. This amount would cover the overharvest of SCS in 
the Gulf of Mexico during the 2006 first trimester (63.2 mt dw) as well 
as give the region additional SCS quota during the 2007 first 
trimester. NMFS did not select this alternative because under the other 
preferred alternative, alternative A2, the South Atlantic region will 
be closed to directed LCS fishing during the 2007 first trimester. 
Therefore, the South Atlantic region might need a larger SCS quota 
during the 2007 first season to compensate for the LCS fishery closure.
    The last new alternative (alternative B4), if selected, would 
transfer SCS underharvests from each region during the 2006 first 
trimester into a reserve category that would then be used to cover the 
overharvest of any region in the 2007 first trimester. NMFS did not 
selected this alternative because it could cause negative economic 
impacts in the North and South Atlantic regions and because this type 
of action would be more appropriate in a permanent rule rather than a 
temporary rule. Under the status quo, alternative B1, the 2006 first 
trimester underharvests in the North and South Atlantic regions would 
carry over to their quotas in the 2007 first trimester, resulting in 
2007 first trimester quotas of 18.8 and 371.6 mt dw, respectively. 
However, under this alternative, the North and South Atlantic regions 
would allocate their baseline first trimester SCS quotas or 0.1 and 
131.5 mt dw, respectively. This would be a difference in SCS quota of 
18.7 and 240.1 mt dw, respectively.

Response To Comments

    Comments on the October 5, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 58778) 
received from October 5, 2006, through November 17, 2006, are 
summarized below and are organized according to issue, together with 
NMFS' responses.

A. Economic Aspects of the Shark Fishery

    Comment 1: NMFS received a comment regarding the phase-out of most, 
if not all, of the U.S. Atlantic commercial shark fishery, and a 
buyback program because numerous fishermen will be affected by the 
abbreviated fishing season in 2007 and pending regulations based upon 
the LCS and dusky shark stock assessment. Stopgap measures such as the 
institution of minimum sizes, retention of all fins for better species 
identification, and designation of additional closed areas do not 
appear, at the time, to be capable of slowing the decline of LCS. 
Directed commercial fisheries for sandbar and other LCS fisheries 
cannot continue much longer, except perhaps with a tightly limited and 
monitored commercial fishery directed at the blacktip shark in the Gulf 
of Mexico.
    Response: This rule addresses overharvests that occurred in the 
South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions and establishes the 
appropriate fishing seasons and quotas for the first trimester of 2007, 
consistent with the rebuilding plan established in 2003 (December 24, 
2003; 68 FR 74746). An amendment to the Consolidated Highly Migratory 
Species Fishery Management Plan will be forthcoming in 2007 (November 
7, 2006; 71 FR 65086). The amendment will implement measures to address 
the recent stock assessments for LCS and dusky sharks, which indicate 
that these species are in need of more protective measures to prevent 
further declines in their abundance. The measures included in this 
amendment will be wide-ranging and evaluate the most effective means of 
aligning harvest of LCS with the most recent stock assessments. Such 
measures could include those listed in the comment. Additionally, NMFS 
is currently reviewing a buyback business plan conducted by the Gulf of 
Mexico and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation for the industry and 
submitted to NMFS in September 2006.
    Comment 2: NMFS received numerous comments stating that shark 
fishermen are also impacted by restrictions and management measures in 
other fisheries, especially the reef fish, snapper/grouper, and golden 
tilefish fisheries. Fishermen in Cocoa Beach, FL indicated that quota 
cuts in the golden tilefish fishery off the Atlantic coast of Florida 
coupled with the proposed closure of the LCS fishery in this region 
will cost fishermen a lot of money. The effect on the commercial shark 
business is that some vessels will go into bankruptcy. NMFS' statements 
of ``no significant impacts'' regarding the collective impact of these 
actions has no bearing on reality.
    Response: NMFS realizes that there are few participants in HMS 
fisheries that depend solely on the species under the purview of the 
HMS Management Division. Shark fishermen participants also target reef 
fish, snapper/grouper, mackerel, and golden tilefish either on the same 
trip or at different times of the year. Pelagic longline fishermen 
target swordfish and tunas in addition to dolphin and/or wahoo. Current 
regulations state that if overharvests of LCS or SCS occur, these 
overharvests must be taken into consideration when establishing 
subsequent years' quota for that trimester. In the analyses that 
established these regulations, NMFS took into account the fact that 
few, if any, HMS fishermen rely solely on HMS fish and that closures 
and opening of other fisheries affect whether or not HMS fishermen will 
fish for HMS species. This current rulemaking attempts to provide 
fishermen with every opportunity to catch LCS and SCS while maintaining 
consistency with existing regulations and preventing overfishing of 
managed species. NMFS is also working on methods to improve fishery 
management on a more ecosystem-based level. In regard to the statement 
regarding ``no significant impact,'' NMFS did not state in the proposed 
rule that the proposed actions would have no significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Rather, NMFS conducted an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) consistent with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. While NMFS received several comments regarding the 
potential economic impacts of the proposed rule, NMFS did not receive 
any comments specific to the IRFA. Nonetheless, NMFS considered the 
economic impacts and conducted a FRFA for the final rule portion of 
this action. A summary of the FRFA is provided below in the 
Classification section.
    Comment 3: The ultimate solution for the participants in the shark 
fishery and for fisheries management is the implementation of 
individual fishing quotas (IFQs). All of the serious shark fishermen 
that I am in contact with would support IFQs. Allocation could be 
related to catch history. They would be willing to pay for observers if 
necessary. This would allow the fishermen to fish when the sharks are 
there and when the market is right and when it did not conflict with 
other fisheries.
    Response: NMFS agrees that implementation of IFQs could be 
beneficial for both fishermen and the resource. However, implementation 
of IFQs will take several years as NMFS

[[Page 75125]]

and fishermen would need to devise a program that would split the quota 
among participants in a equitable and appropriate manner. The 
development of such a program would also likely require an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking, which was only meant to establish season lengths and quotas 
for the first season of 2007, consistent with existing regulations. As 
stated in previous documents, NMFS would like to review the existing 
HMS commercial permit structure in the near future. Such a review could 
include IFQs as a potential solution to some of the problems in the 
current permit structure.
    Comment 4: The economic impacts of closing the South Atlantic 
region are more likely neutral because the fishermen harvested 230 
percent of the region's trimester quota in 2006, so they attained the 
economic benefits already.
    Response: While fishermen received greater revenues in the first 
trimester of 2006 resulting from the overharvest, those economic 
benefits would not likely address the future cash flow issues that 
fishing operations may face in the future due to extended closures. The 
economic impacts of closing the South Atlantic region would likely 
include decreases in employment, financing costs to cover fixed costs, 
difficulty covering fixed costs, and potential negative cash flows that 
could result in business failures of marginal operators. In addition, 
the lack of LCS supply to South Atlantic dealers during this period 
would potentially impact those dealers' ability to meet the demands of 
their customers for prolonged periods potentially resulting in lost 
clients as buyers shift their demand to other regions. Finally, 
shoreside support businesses would also likely receive lower demands 
for gear, fuel, and other services if the closures result in less 
fishing activity by affected vessels.
    Comment 5: The negative economic impacts were underestimated, the 
South Atlantic is closed for LCS in October, meaning the South Atlantic 
will experience a 10 month closure of this fishery and not just 6 
months as stated.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the South Atlantic will in fact 
experience a closure in the South Atlantic region for LCS that, in 
total, is longer than six months. The analysis for previous rules 
accounted for the closure period at the end of 2006. As such, 
technically, the scope of analysis for this particular rulemaking 
starts on January 1, 2007, and the baseline for analysis in this rule 
already factors in the closure period at the end of 2006. However, NMFS 
takes prior closures and potential future closures into consideration 
when determining the type of management actions to implement. Thus, in 
this rulemaking, NMFS is opening the entire South Atlantic region, 
including the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area, for the month of July, 
pending available quota, to ensure that all fishermen in the South 
Atlantic region have the same opportunity to fish in their region in 
the second season of 2007. This action is being taken after considering 
the impacts of a long closure on the region (October 3, 2006, to July 
2007), the potential for a longer closure or short 2nd season given the 
overharvest in the second season of 2006, and closures in other 
fisheries.
    Comment 6: Alternative 5, transfer the LCS underharvest from the 
Gulf of Mexico's first trimester of 2006 to the South Atlantic first 
trimester of 2007 is preferable because it would provide some economic 
benefits for the shark fishery in case it is phased out.
    Response: Alternative 5 would have distributed a portion of the 
originally anticipated LCS underharvest from the Gulf of Mexico's 
landings from the first trimester of 2006 to the South Atlantic first 
trimester of 2007, thus providing for a first trimester season for 2007 
in the South Atlantic. While this alternative would have provided some 
revenue generating opportunities in the South Atlantic, this 
alternative was not selected as it would not account for the 
overharvest experienced in the South Atlantic region during the first 
trimester of 2006, resulting in additional fishing mortality in 2007 
and negative ecological impacts as a consequence. Furthermore, the 
potential exists for the South Atlantic region to exceed its 2007 first 
trimester quota, exacerbating future potential economic and ecological 
impacts as a result.
    Revised 2006 first trimester harvest numbers now indicate that the 
Gulf of Mexico's landing from the first trimester resulted in an 
overharvest of 113.9 mt of LCS. Therefore, a quota transfer from the 
Gulf of Mexico region to the South Atlantic region for the 2007 first 
trimester no longer exists, and therefore this alternative was not 
considered in the final rule and EA.

B. Quota Monitoring and Trimester Seasons

    Comment 7: NMFS received several comments, including one from the 
State of North Carolina, regarding the mechanisms for reporting and 
quota monitoring, including: the Agency needs real-time quota 
monitoring to prevent this from happening in the future; and quotas for 
sharks should be like they are for flounder - you should be allowed to 
go fishing wherever you want and allow fishermen to land fish even when 
the season is closed; NMFS should develop some additional transparency 
on the data collection; and NMFS should look for independent means to 
verify 2006 landings and investigate how long this situation has 
existed.
    Response: NMFS realizes there were problems with reporting shark 
dealer landings during the first trimester season of 2006. Several 
weeks after the publication of the proposed rule on October 2, 2006, 
NMFS became aware of extensive landings by several shark dealers that 
were not received by the Agency during the first trimester of 2006. 
Incomplete or non-submitted data make it difficult for the Agency to 
effectively monitor quotas and establish future seasons based on these 
landings. Accordingly, NMFS is pursuing options to ensure that these 
issues do not occur in the future and to investigate problems that have 
occurred in the past. While implementation of real-time quota 
monitoring may be an effective substitute for the twice monthly 
reporting regime currently in place, such a system would still depend 
on shark dealers to submit their data in a timely manner and would 
require additional time and Agency resources that are beyond the 
objectives of this rulemaking. Similar to other fisheries, sharks need 
to be managed in a comprehensive way, including managing them through 
the use of time/area closures and quotas.
    Comment 8: NMFS received several comments regarding quotas in 
general and the trimester seasons, including: quotas used to be 
beneficial and some regulation is a good thing, but trimester seasons 
are ineffective and semi-annual seasons are better; there are conflicts 
with the openings and closings of other fisheries with the trimester 
fishing seasons as currently configured; dividing the fishing year into 
two parts allowed for more flexibility and was more workable for the 
fishermen; and the Agency needs to re-evaluate how the quota that was 
transferred between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions back 
in 2004; if the South Atlantic regional quota were at pre-transfer 
levels, the overharvest may not have been as severe.
    Response: This rule will not address the trimester seasons or shark 
fishing regions that were established in 2003 Amendment 1 to the 1999 
FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks, and the subsequent 
rulemaking (November 30, 2004, 69 FR 69537).

[[Page 75126]]

 When NMFS first implemented the trimester seasons, NMFS thought the 
trimesters would provide fishermen with more fishing opportunities 
later in the year (September through December) when they were 
traditionally not allowed to fish under the semi-annual seasons and to 
protect large pregnant female sharks and their pups from excessive 
fishing pressure. Similarly, NMFS thought regional quota allocations 
would provide NMFS with the ability to manage each region in a manner 
that would benefit commercial shark fishing and fishermen in that 
region. Under the current regime, regions that did not experience an 
overharvest are not penalized by quota reductions for overharvests that 
may occur in the adjacent region. The November 30, 2004, rulemaking 
adjusted the regional quota allocations based on landings data that 
were more recent (through 2003) than the landings information analyzed 
for the 2003 Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish 
and Sharks (through 2001). These data indicated that landings in the 
Gulf of Mexico region had increased, and therefore, that region was 
given more quota. Effectively, this resulted in an 11 percent 
adjustment between the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic region for 
LCS. Had this adjustment not been initiated, the South Atlantic region 
would have still experienced an LCS overharvest in the first trimester 
of 2006 large enough to warrant a closure of the fishery, and the Gulf 
of Mexico region would also have had a larger overharvest. NMFS will 
likely re-examine trimester and regional quotas in the amendment to the 
Consolidated HMS FMP.
    Comment 9: Carrying forward underharvests does not seem like a good 
idea. The Agency should only carry underharvests over for a year. 
Anymore than that does not make any sense. It could allow the quota to 
get too high. Eventually the base quota becomes meaningless.
    Response: This rulemaking did not consider modifications to the 
existing regulations for adjustment of subsequent quotas based on over- 
or underharvests that occur in a given trimester season and region. In 
addition, underharvests is only a major issue for SCS and the first 
trimester in the North Atlantic region for LCS. NMFS will be conducting 
a stock assessment for SCS in 2007, at which time NMFS can evaluate the 
effect of recent carry overs on SCS populations. NMFS agrees that 
carrying substantial underharvest forward every year could allow the 
quota to get too high and could have negative ecological impacts if the 
entire adjusted quota is taken in one year. However, carrying forward 
smaller underharvests provides fishermen with additional fishing 
opportunities in the future, especially in circumstances where the 
fishermen were not able to catch their quota because of factors outside 
their control (i.e., hurricanes, oceanographic conditions, etc.). 
Similarly, removing overharvests from the next year's trimester ensures 
that overfishing does not occur and fisheries are managed at quota 
levels that are consistent with the most recent stock assessment and 
corresponding optimum (OY) or maximum sustained yield (MSY). The issue 
of substantial underharvests for bluefin tuna was recently addressed in 
the Consolidated HMS FMP where no more than the 100 percent of the 
baseline allocation can be carried forward. Similar measures could be 
addressed for sharks in the upcoming amendment.
    Comment 10: NMFS received numerous comments expressing concern 
about the landings for large coastal sharks, including: why did the 
South Atlantic exceed their quota by so much?; the reported landings 
for the South Atlantic region do not make sense because most of the 
boats fishing for shark are based in the Gulf of Mexico and most of the 
effort is in that region; landings reported in Key West should be 
carefully analyzed because this port is unique in that boats can fish 
either the Gulf of Mexico or South Atlantic and land in Key West; and 
errors in reporting areas fished can influence the decision making 
process in a way that is potentially unfair to one region or another.
    Response: The original proposed rule that was published on October 
5, 2006, was based on landings reports that had been received through 
August 24, 2006. Due to the extensive overharvest of LCS in the South 
Atlantic region, the original dealer reports were scrutinized to ensure 
that there were no landings, including the ones in Key West, mistakenly 
attributed to the South Atlantic region's quota. In mid-October, NMFS 
received information that indicated that the August 24, 2006, landings 
data were incomplete because they did not include all the shark dealer 
landings for the first trimester of 2006. Landings reports that had not 
previously been received by the Agency were received and drastically 
modified the estimated landings for LCS in the Gulf of Mexico and South 
Atlantic regions and SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region that the proposed 
rule was based upon. Additionally, the Agency examined other data 
sources to identify dealers that were reporting shark landings via 
other reporting requirements.
    Errors in reporting, late reporting, and no reporting are unfair to 
fishermen in all regions who rely on the Agency's quota monitoring to 
make decisions on whether or not they should or can fish for sharks. As 
described in the response to comment 7, the Agency is taking steps to 
ensure it will not happen again.

C. Season Lengths

    Comment 11: NMFS received several comments on opening the second 
trimester in May, including: it was my hope when we switched to 
regional quotas that the Gulf of Mexico would be open in May, which 
would benefit the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic by creating a 
year round market for sharks; when everyone opens at the same time you 
glut the market and we have fish in the Gulf of Mexico in May; and, is 
it possible to open the second trimester season in May in the South 
Atlantic as a result of the extensive period of time that region is 
proposed to be closed?
    Response: The rulemaking did not evaluate quotas and season lengths 
for the second trimester of 2007. These measures will be addressed in a 
subsequent rulemaking once more landings data are available for the 
2006 second and third trimester seasons. Traditionally, shark fishing 
in the second trimester begins in July to avoid concerns regarding 
pupping seasons for various species in the Gulf of Mexico and South 
Atlantic regions and to avoid conflicts with the fourth of July food 
markets. Opening the second trimester in May might be an option for 
consideration for the Gulf of Mexico region. However, given the 
decision to open the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in July, pending 
available quota, it is unlikely the South Atlantic region would open 
earlier than July for the second season.

D. Quota Transfer

    Comment 12: NMFS received comments for and against transferring LCS 
quota from the Gulf of Mexico region to the South Atlantic region, 
including: any opening of the first trimester South Atlantic fishery 
would be better than nothing. Whether the quota allocation is 
transferred from the Gulf of Mexico or otherwise justified, it would be 
a welcome alternative to tying up the boats. Perhaps it could begin 
February 1, 2007, when the migration in the South Atlantic is well 
underway; I am concerned about shifting blacktip quota from the Gulf of 
Mexico region to the South Atlantic region because these

[[Page 75127]]

are unique populations of blacktip sharks, furthermore, since the 2006 
LCS assessment stated that the population status of blacktip sharks in 
the South Atlantic is unknown, fishing pressure in that region should 
not be increased; Alternative 5, a one year, one time 120 mt dw 
transfer, will not make much difference; I support a one-time transfer 
of quota from the Gulf of Mexico region to the South Atlantic region; 
the State of Louisiana opposes reallocation of Gulf of Mexico quota to 
the South Atlantic region because the underharvest that occurred during 
the first trimester of 2006 was a result of the hurricane season of 
2005, and underharvests in other fisheries have also taken place; and 
transferring quotas appears to provide economic benefit for fishermen 
but provides no conservation benefit to species.
    Response: The Agency is aware of the economic consequences of 
closing the South Atlantic region to LCS fishing during the first 
trimester of 2007. An alternative that would transfer underharvest from 
the Gulf of Mexico region to the South Atlantic region was considered 
in the proposed rule (October 5, 2006; 71 FR 58778). As a result of 
revised landings estimates, which indicate that the Gulf of Mexico no 
longer has underharvest to transfer, this is no longer a viable 
alternative. Overharvests experienced by the South Atlantic region (278 
percent) and the Gulf of Mexico (151 percent) limit the viable options 
available for the first trimester 2006 LCS fisheries, while not 
resulting in overfishing. As such, LCS quota transfers, as outlined in 
the proposed rule alternatives 1, 2, and 5, will no longer be 
considered in this rule making.
    Under the preferred alternative, alternative B2, during the 2007 
first trimester, the Gulf of Mexico region will receive a quota 
transfer of 63.2 mt dw from the South Atlantic's regional SCS 
underharvest in 2006. Unlike LCS populations, SCS are not thought to 
exhibit population structure between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
basins. In addition, SCS quotas for each region were based on 
historical landings, and the trimester quotas were based on public 
comment, and the catch composition of SCS are similar among the two 
regions. Therefore, the ecological impacts of reallocating SCS quota 
from one region to another would most likely be minimal, and would 
allow fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region a SCS fishery in the first 
trimester of 2007 that would otherwise not be possible.
    Comment 13: The State of Louisiana submitted a comment stating 
concern over the proposed open season for LCS and the fact that this 
will conflict with a state imposed shark closure in Louisiana water 
that exists between April 1 and June 30 each year.
    Response: As a result of revised landings estimates, the Gulf of 
Mexico region no longer has an underharvest of LCS. As such, the season 
in the Gulf of Mexico will only last two weeks in the beginning of 
January, and there should no longer be conflicts with the closure in 
Louisiana state waters.

E. Preferred Alternative A2 (formerly alternative 3)

    Comment 14: NMFS received several comments in support of the 
preferred alternative, to close the entire South Atlantic region for 
LCS during the first trimester of 2007, and open the entire South 
Atlantic region, including the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in July 
2007, pending availability of quota, including: I find the preferred 
alternative in the proposed rule to be the most acceptable option 
offered by NMFS because transferring overharvest and underharvest 
between regions makes no biological sense given the current LCS status; 
closing the South Atlantic region until July is justified given the 
overharvest in the first trimester of 2006, and will help to protect 
pregnant female sandbar sharks along the Atlantic coast; and the 
preferred alternative would be good for the Gulf of Mexico region 
because we would have single access to the LCS. The market would not be 
flooded in January as it usually is.
    Response: The preferred alternatives have changed since the October 
5, 2006, rulemaking as a result of revised landings data received after 
the proposed rule had published. These data indicate an overharvest for 
LCS in the Gulf of Mexico during the first trimester of 2006, which 
will result in the Gulf of Mexico having a two-week LCS season instead 
of the full trimester as proposed. The transfer of quota from the Gulf 
of Mexico region is no longer an option. The preferred alternatives 
account for overharvests in the LCS and SCS fisheries while providing 
additional fishing opportunities to offset the negative ecological 
impacts of a six month closure in the South Atlantic region.
    Comment 15: NMFS received several comments opposing the preferred 
alternative and that NMFS should reverse course and further protect 
depleted populations of these shark species.
    Response: In light of the extensive overharvest of LCS that 
occurred in the South Atlantic during the first trimester of 2006, NMFS 
has preferred to close the LCS fishery for six months, and NMFS is 
opening the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in July, pending available 
quota. This time period for a closure of the entire South Atlantic 
region encompasses the entire first trimester season of 2007 plus two 
additional months (May and June). While this opening will allow for 
some limited fishing, it will not cause further harm to the species. 
NMFS realizes that the ecological impacts of this alternative would be 
neutral or slightly negative; however, as described in the EA, this 
alternative is the best balance of all the factors (social, economic, 
and ecological) that the Agency must consider during a rulemaking.

F. Mid-Atlantic Shark Closed Area

    Comment 16: NMFS received numerous comments expressing concern 
about reopening the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in July 2007 
depending upon availability of quota for that region and trimester, 
including: I question opening the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in 
July of 2007, this may be balanced by a larger closure (South Atlantic 
wide) January through June, however, the closed area was closed for a 
reason; the Agency needs to ensure that there are no adverse ecological 
impacts as a result of opening the mid Atlantic shark closed area; what 
is the ecological value of the closed area off North Carolina?; the 
benefits of reopening a closed area need to be weighed against the fact 
that this may set a precedent for opening other closed areas; what will 
the ecological impacts be of opening the closed area?; why would you 
not need an EIS to modify the closed area since an EIS was required to 
implement the closure?; the EA provides dubious justification for the 
assertions that it met Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) context 
and intensity criteria that actions taken will not significantly 
jeopardize the sustainability of target and non-target species. The EA 
stated that NMFS does not know the extent of the impact; what does the 
BLL closed area have to do with any of this, the overharvest was for 
the entire region not just the mid-Atlantic closed area; the mid-
Atlantic shark closed area raises National Standard 4 issues; the 
majority of the HMS advisory panel (AP) stated at the October 2006 
meeting, that the proposal to relax the time area closure was without 
merit; and, everyone should consider the ramifications of North 
Carolina closing its state waters.
    Response: The mid-Atlantic shark closed area is of ecological value 
as both an area of high localized density of

[[Page 75128]]

sandbar and dusky sharks and as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern 
(HAPC) as an important nursery and pupping ground for these species. 
Although this time/area closure is of limited geographic extent, it was 
established for ecological reasons, not to discriminate against any 
particular region or user group as prohibited under National Standard 
4. Comparing landings reported in the Coastal Fisheries logbooks from 
the South Atlantic region between 2002-2004 (without closed area) with 
2005 (with closed area) indicates that landings of LCS decreased by 
22.3 percent after implementation of the mid-Atlantic shark closed 
area. Landings of sandbar sharks in the South Atlantic region decreased 
by 26.7 percent in 2005 compared to 2002-2004, which could have been a 
result of the mid-Atlantic shark closed area. Specific to the month of 
July in the South Atlantic region, landings of LCS and sandbar sharks 
have decreased by 9.7 and 18 percent, respectively. The Agency only has 
one year of logbook data (2005) since the implementation of the 
closure, therefore, it is difficult to discern exactly what the actual 
ecological impacts of opening the closure for an additional month in 
2007 would be. Overall ecological impacts of the preferred alternative, 
which includes opening the closed area for one month, is expected to be 
neutral or slightly negative. While the quota overage that occurred in 
2006 must be accounted for ecologically, NMFS must consider the social 
and economic repercussions of such actions. As described below in the 
response to comment 17, the preferred alternative is the best balance 
of these interests. NMFS feels that the potential negative ecological 
impact of opening the mid-Atlantic shark closed area for a portion of 
the month of July 2007 would be minor, particularly compared to the 
potential economic and social impacts to fishermen and communities that 
rely on the area if the area remains closed.
    In regard to the statement about conducting an EIS to open the 
closed area, the Agency must consider numerous factors in determining 
the NEPA action required. In this case, the Agency determined that an 
EIS is not necessary for the action regarding opening the closed area 
in part because, given the limited size and magnitude of this one time, 
one month opening of the mid-Atlantic closed area, NMFS does not 
anticipate significant effects individually or cumulatively on the 
environment. Nor does NMFS consider this action to be a major action. 
An EIS would be more likely if the Agency were more permanent or 
lengthy changes to the closed area. Additionally, the LCS overharvest 
that occurred in the South Atlantic in 2006 was unique, and occurred 
just prior to the release of a new LCS stock assessment report. The 
results of the stock assessment will most likely lead to modifications 
to the current structure of shark management in the Atlantic, making it 
very unlikely that a precedent would be set by this action. Given the 
results of the recent stock assessment, NMFS intends to take a more 
species-specific approach, compared to the current approach based on 
the complex as a whole, to managing sharks based on the individual 
stock assessments of LCS, sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks. Thus, 
given the changes likely in shark management in the near future, this 
action is likely not precedent setting and likely will not be repeated.
    Comment 17: NMFS also received a number of comments regarding the 
effects of the time area closure, specifically on sandbar and dusky 
sharks including: the closed area is for pups of dusky and sandbar 
sharks, given the assessment for sandbars, why are you opening up the 
closed area?; it is just a month reopening, but these stocks are in bad 
shape; sandbar and dusky assessments underscore the need for highly 
protective management measures to ensure that dusky sharks do not slip 
further towards extinction; NMFS should act now to strengthen 
conservation measures for dusky and sandbar sharks; NMFS should not 
open the mid-Atlantic time area closure because it is designed to 
protect juvenile sandbar sharks (they need 70 years to rebuild); the EA 
admits that the change would increase fishing mortality on dusky and 
sandbar sharks but it does not quantify the extent to which mortality 
will increase; NMFS admits an 18-percent reduction in sandbar shark 
landings as a result of the mid Atlantic closure before and after the 
closure was established; the EA dismissed the impact of the additional 
fishing mortality on sandbar and dusky sharks as a result of opening 
the mid Atlantic time area closure; the prohibited status of dusky 
sharks alone has not improved the status of dusky sharks, therefore, 
time area closure is also necessary; is the closed area part of the 
existing provisions of the rebuilding timeframe for sandbar sharks?; EA 
is vague about the impacts of proposed action on individual shark 
species; some of the species are likely to be disproportionately 
affected by the proposed actions; it is clearly inappropriate to manage 
sharks by multi-species complexes; would any good data be available as 
a result of opening the closed area; NMFS needs to ensure that 
observers are present onboard vessels that fish in July in the mid-
Atlantic shark closed area in order to get data regarding landings and 
bycatch; this closed area has caused a great deal of controversy since 
its inception, opening for a short time period may provide some good 
data and determine whether or not the controversy initiated by the 
closure has been worthwhile; and closed area off a single jurisdiction 
should be eliminated from consideration, and trip limits and quotas are 
far more fair and equitable management tools.
    Response: Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, would close 
the South Atlantic region to LCS fishing during the first trimester of 
2007 and open the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in July 2007. The mid-
Atlantic shark closed area was implemented to protect neonate and 
juvenile dusky and sandbar sharks by reducing discards and preventing 
bycatch of prohibited species during January through July. The Agency's 
decision to open the mid-Atlantic shark closed area in July, depending 
on available quota, is based on the realization that the LCS fishery in 
the South Atlantic region will experience a closure from the conclusion 
of the 2006 third trimester season (October 3, 2007) until July 1, 
2007, or nine months. Historically, the second semi-annual or trimester 
season has opened in July. The opening of this closed area depends on 
the level of overharvest in the second trimester of 2006 in the South 
Atlantic region. Current landings estimates indicate the South Atlantic 
region landed 135.5 percent (205.5 mt dw) of their 2006 second 
trimester quota (151.7 mt dw) (November 13, 2006, 71 FR 66154); given 
this overharvest, the second season may not be open as long as in 
previous years, and may only occur for a few weeks in July 2007. If 
NMFS does not consider opening the mid-Atlantic shark closed area 
during a portion of the month of July 2007, then depending on the start 
date of the 2007 second trimester in the South Atlantic region, 
fishermen that normally fish in the closed area would not have an LCS 
fishery in Federal waters until September 2007, when the third LCS 
season traditionally opens, unless they moved to another area. This is 
equivalent of an 11 month LCS fishery closure in that area. Meanwhile, 
other areas in the South Atlantic region would have a fishery in July 
2007, which would be the start of the second

[[Page 75129]]

trimester season. Thus, this opening may result in increased 
opportunity between fishery participants in the vicinity of the mid-
Atlantic shark closed area and those in other portions of the South 
Atlantic region. Therefore, given the limited opening of the area and 
the amount of time the South Atlantic region will be closed (October 
2006 to at least July 2007), NMFS feels that the potential negative 
ecological impact of opening the mid-Atlantic shark closed area for a 
portion of July 2007 would be minor.
    The ecological impacts of this alternative are similar to 
alternative A1, with the exception of the impacts of opening the mid-
Atlantic shark closed area. NMFS does anticipate that opening the 
closure for a portion of the month of July will potentially increase 
dead discards of dusky and sandbar sharks compared to maintaining the 
closure through July. However, under the existing rebuilding plan, the 
numbers of dead discards that may occur as a result of opening this 
area in for one month are anticipated to be minor. It is anticipated 
the number of neonates and juveniles affected by opening the closure 
during a portion of July will be relatively minor, especially since no 
fishing in the entire South Atlantic region will occur between January 
through June, a time during which pregnant females and neonate sandbar 
sharks begin to pup off the coast of Florida and dusky sharks start to 
pup between South Carolina and Maryland (NMFS, 2003).
    According to the analyses in the 2003 Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP 
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, over 80 percent of all dusky 
sharks observed caught in the Atlantic were caught in January through 
June. Of those dusky sharks observed caught in the closed area, 86 
percent were caught from January through June. In July, the number of 
dusky sharks observed in the closed was less than 13 percent of all 
dusky sharks observed throughout the year. The highest catches occurred 
during the months of January and March. Similarly, approximately 70 
percent of all sandbars observed caught in the Atlantic were caught in 
January through June and 81 percent were observed caught in the closed 
area from January through June. For sandbar sharks, 18 percent were 
observed caught in the closed area in July, with the month of January 
having the highest catches. Thus, opening the closed area for a portion 
of July would help mitigate the economic hardships in this region while 
potentially creating minor negative ecological impacts due the lack of 
a LCS fishery in the 2007 first trimester in the entire South Atlantic 
region.
    As described above in the response to comment 16, data indicate 
that landings of LCS decreased by 22.3 percent after implementation of 
the mid-Atlantic shark closed area and landings of sandbar sharks in 
the South Atlantic region decreased by 26.7 percent in 2005 compared to 
2002-2004. Specific to the month of July in the South Atlantic region, 
landings of LCS and sandbar sharks have decreased by 9.7 and 18 
percent, respectively. These reductions could have been due to the 
implementation of the closed area. Data also indicate that only 6 
percent of the effort (i.e., number of hooks) occurred in the closed 
area for the month of July compared to the rest of the Atlantic 
throughout the year (NMFS, 2003). However, given that the Agency only 
has one year of logbook data (2005) since the implementation of the 
closure, therefore, it is difficult to discern exactly what the actual 
ecological impacts of opening the closure for an additional month in 
2007 would be. Nonetheless, the Agency feels that the ecological 
impacts of opening the closure for one month would be neutral or 
slightly negative.
    Currently, vessels are randomly selected to carry observers; 
however, NMFS agrees that valuable information could be retrieved 
during the one month opening. As such, NMFS is investigating its 
ability (e.g., available resources) to increase observer coverage in 
that area and time and the information that could be collected 
(including the possibility of placing pop-up archival satellite tags on 
released animals). NMFS will let affected fishermen know of any changes 
in observer coverage, as appropriate.

G. General Comments

    Comment 18: The failure to land the quota for porbeagle sharks is 
likely a testament to the scarcity of porbeagles. Canadian porbeagles 
are to be listed as endangered under their Species Risk Act, and the 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has also 
listed porbeagles as endangered. NMFS has recently placed them on the 
Species of Concern list. In doing so, NMFS acknowledged that only 
approximately 15 percent of the porbeagle population is estimated to be 
mature breeding females. NMFS should revoke the quota for porbeagles 
and add them to the Prohibited Species category.
    Response: Only 0.5 mt dw of the porbeagle 2006 first trimester 
quota was landed for all regions. NMFS does not expect an increase in 
fishing pressure on porbeagle sharks during 2007 as fishermen that 
catch porbeagles as bycatch prefer to target swordfish and tuna (i.e., 
they are not targeting porbeagles) since swordfish and tuna meat have 
higher market values. However, due to the overfished status of this 
species (November 7, 2006; 71 FR 65086), NMFS will develop a rebuilding 
plan for porbeagles in the upcoming amendment to the Consolidated HMS 
FMP. Any necessary changes in porbeagle quota will be considered at 
that time.
    Comment 19: Shark quotas have been too small, and the shark science 
is incorrect; my catches have been increasing even though the seasons 
have been shortened. Why are our quotas still being reduced?; and with 
some rebuilding times measured in hundreds of years, what is the 
Agency's intention in terms of maintaining a viable fishery?
    Response: The current LCS quotas were established in accordance 
with the 2002 LCS stock assessment and implemented by the 2003 
Amendment to the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. 
Any changes to these quotas, based on the 2005/2006 LCS stock 
assessment, 2005 porbeagle shark assessment, and 2006 dusky shark 
assessment will be done in an amendment to the 2006 Consolidated HMS 
FMP. While an individual fisherman's catches may have increased during 
different periods of time, the stock assessments indicated that the 
overall catch rates for most species individually assessed (except for 
the Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks) are on the decline. In the 2002 
assessment, LCS were overfished with overfishing occurring and sandbar 
sharks had overfishing occurring. Based on the current assessments, 
sandbar, and dusky sharks have been determined to be overfished with 
overfishing occurring, and porbeagle sharks have overfishing occurring. 
As such, NMFS has adjusted quotas, and will continue to adjust quotas 
for these species, as appropriate, to rebuild these stocks and end 
overfishing. As part of these adjustments, NMFS will consider 
commercial and recreational management measures that will provide some 
level of commercial and recreational fishing as well as the opportunity 
to rebuild the resource.
    Comment 20: The sandbar shark assessment changed dramatically from 
the last assessment, primarily as a result of the maturity ogives. 
There is significant concern surrounding this change and a formal 
review of the data needs to be accomplished before new measures are 
proposed. Additionally, continued citation of the dusky shark 
assessment that has been neither peer-

[[Page 75130]]

reviewed nor based on an accepted modeling technique is premature.
    Response: The maturity ogives used in the 2006 sandbar shark 
assessment were based on the best available science for sandbar sharks. 
The current LCS stock assessment, including the blacktip and sandbar 
sharks assessments, were conducted under the Southeast Data and Review 
(SEDAR) process. During the peer review process of the assessment, the 
reviewers requested analyses using the maturity ogive from the 2002 
stock assessment. The result of that sensitivity analysis was similar 
to the result using the updated ogive. The dusky shark assessment was 
started in 2002, before the SEDAR process was initiated. This 
assessment was done at the request of the industry and others, who 
wanted more species-specific assessments conducted. The modeling 
techniques used in this assessment are based on commonly accepted 
assessment practices that have been internally reviewed within the 
NMFS. In addition, staff members of the Southeast Fisheries Science 
Center that were involved in the 2005/2006 LCS stock assessment, and 
are therefore familiar with appropriate stock assessment approaches, 
conducted the dusky shark assessment. Therefore, this assessment 
constitutes the best available science for dusky sharks.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS has made several changes from the October 5, 2006, proposed 
rule (71 FR 58778) regarding the Gulf of Mexico's regional SCS and LCS 
quotas and LCS season and the South Atlantic's regional SCS quotas. 
These changes are outlined below. The proposed management measures for 
the North Atlantic regional LCS and SCS and South Atlantic regional LCS 
and pelagic sharks did not change. Similarly, the proposed measure to 
open the mid-Atlantic closure in the month of July, pending available 
quota, did not change.
    1. In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed that the Gulf of Mexico 
region would have a LCS quota of 295.8 mt dw. This proposal was based 
on landings estimates as of August 24, 2006. Updated landings estimates 
on November 13, 2006 (71 FR 66154), indicated that Gulf of Mexico 
region harvested 151.1 percent (336.6 mt dw) of their LCS quota during 
the first trimester of 2006. Thus, due to the additional landings 
reports and the overharvest of LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region during 
the 2006 trimester, NMFS is adjusting the quota to 62.3 mt dw (176.1 mt 
dw regional and baseline quota - 113.8 mt dw overharvest).
    2. In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed that the Gulf of Mexico 
region would have a LCS season of January 1, 2007, until April 30, 
2007. As described in the proposed rule, this season length was based 
on calculations of the average catch rates from January through April 
during the first season in recent years (2003-2006) and the available 
quota. Because state landings during a Federal closure are counted 
against the quota, NMFS also considered the average amount of quota 
reported as received during the Federal closure dates of the years used 
to estimate catch rates. Based on revised landings estimates, the 
season length for the Gulf of Mexico region must be recalculated.
    Based on the average January LCS catch rates in recent years in the 
Gulf of Mexico region, NMFS calculates that approximately 91.6 percent 
of the available first trimester LCS quota (62.3 mt dw) would likely be 
taken in two weeks, and 137.4 percent of the available LCS quota would 
likely be taken in three weeks. Dealer data also indicate that, on 
average, approximately 4 mt dw of LCS has been reported received by 
dealers during a Federal closure. This is approximately 6.4 percent of 
the available quota. If catch rates in 2007 are similar to the average 
catch rates from 2003 to 2006, 98 percent (91.5 + 6.4 percent) of the 
first trimester quota could be caught in two weeks, and 144 percent 
(137.4 + 6.4) of the quota could be caught in three weeks. Thus, NMFS 
will open the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico region on January 1, 2007, 
and close the fishery on January 15, 2007 (two weeks).
    3. In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed that the Gulf of Mexico, 
South Atlantic, and North Atlantic regions would have SCS quotas of 
24.9, 374.0, and 18.7 mt dw, respectively. This proposal was also based 
on landings estimates as of August 24, 2006. Updated landings estimates 
on November 13, 2006 (71 FR 66154), indicated that Gulf of Mexico 
region harvested 527 percent (78 mt dw) of their SCS quota during the 
first trimester of 2006. Meanwhile, the South and North Atlantic 
regions harvested 44.5 and 0 mt dw, respectively, of their SCS quotas. 
Due to the additional landings reports, NMFS is allocating 63.2 mt dw 
of the SCS underharvest in the South Atlantic region during the 2006 
first trimester to the Gulf of Mexico during the 2007 first trimester. 
This will result in a SCS quota of 15.1 mt dw for the Gulf of Mexico 
region and 307.3 mt dw of SCS quota in the South Atlantic region during 
the first trimester of 2007. Based on the underharvest in the 2006 
first trimester (18.7 mt dw), the North Atlantic region will have a 
2007 first trimester SCS quota of 18.8 mt dw.

Quotas for First Trimester 2007

    Pursuant to 50 CFR 635.27(b)(1)(iii) and (iv), the 2007 annual base 
landings quotas are 1,017 mt dw (2,242,078 lb dw) for LCS and 454 mt dw 
(1,000,888.4 lb dw) for SCS. The 2007 quota levels for pelagic, blue, 
and porbeagle sharks are 488 mt dw (1,075,844.8 lb dw), 273 mt dw 
(601,855.8 lb dw), and 92 mt dw (202,823.2 lb dw), respectively. This 
final and temporary rule for an emergency action does not change these 
overall base landings quotas. Table 2 describes the quotas for LCS, 
SCS, and pelagic sharks for the various regions (if applicable) for the 
first trimester of 2007 adjusted for over- and underharvests that 
occurred during the first trimester of 2006.
    Existing regulations do not allow underharvests of pelagic sharks 
to be carried forward to the next fishing management period. As of 
August 24, 2006, approximately 20.3 mt dw had been reported landed in 
the 2006 first trimester fishing season in total for pelagic, blue, and 
porbeagle sharks combined. Thus, the pelagic shark quota does not need 
to be reduced consistent with the current regulations 50 CFR 
635.27(b)(1)(iv). The 2007 first trimester season quotas for pelagic, 
blue, and porbeagle sharks are 162.7 mt dw (358,688 lb dw), 91 mt dw 
(200,619 lb dw), and 30.7 mt dw (67,681 lb dw), respectively.

Fishing Season Notification and Quotas for the First Trimester Season 
2007

    The first trimester fishing season of the 2007 fishing year for 
SCS, pelagic sharks, blue sharks, and porbeagle sharks in the 
northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the 
Caribbean Sea, will open on January 1, 2007 (Table 2). When quotas are 
projected to be reached for the SCS, pelagic, blue, or porbeagle 
sharks, the Assistant Administrator (AA) will file notification of 
closures at the Office of the Federal Register at least 14 days before 
the effective date, consistent with 50 CFR 635.28(b)(2).
    Pursuant to 50 CFR 635.5(b)(1), shark dealers must report any 
sharks received twice a month. More specifically, sharks received 
between the first and 15th of every month must be reported to NMFS by 
the 25th of that same month and those received between the 16th and the 
end of the month must be reported to NMFS by the 10th of the following 
month. Thus, in order to provide consistency and predictability in 
managing the fishery,