Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Shortfin Mako Shark Management Measures; Final Amendment 11, 5358-5377 [2019-02946]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5358-5377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02946]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 180212159-9102-02]
RIN 0648-BH75


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Shortfin Mako Shark Management 
Measures; Final Amendment 11

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is amending the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly 
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) based on the 
results of the 2017 stock assessment and a subsequent binding 
recommendation by the International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. The 
North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock is overfished and is 
experiencing overfishing. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic 
Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), NMFS is implementing management measures 
that will reduce fishing mortality on shortfin mako sharks and 
establish the foundation for rebuilding the shortfin mako shark 
population consistent with legal requirements. The final measures could 
affect U.S. commercial and recreational fishermen who target and 
harvest shortfin mako sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf 
of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, by increasing live releases and reducing 
landings. NMFS is also clarifying the definition of fork length (FL) in 
the definitions section of the HMS regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
containing a list of references used in this document, the dusky shark 
stock assessments, and other documents relevant to this rule are 
available from the HMS Management Division website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gu[yacute] DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-
Geisz at (301) 427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The North Atlantic shortfin mako stock is managed primarily under 
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and also under ATCA. The 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations 
at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of this final 
rule is provided below. Additional information regarding Atlantic shark 
management can be found in the FEIS accompanying this final rule for 
Amendment 11, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the 
annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and 
online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.
    The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) is a 
highly migratory species that ranges across the entire North Atlantic 
Ocean and is caught by numerous countries. The stock is predominantly 
caught offshore in association with fisheries that primarily target 
tunas and tuna-like species. While these sharks are a valued component 
of U.S. recreational and commercial fisheries, U.S. catch represents 
only approximately 9 percent of the species' total catch in the North 
Atlantic by all reporting countries. International measures are, 
therefore, critical to the species' effective conservation and 
management.
    Based on a 2017 ICCAT assessment, on December 13, 2017, NMFS issued 
a status determination finding the stock to be overfished and 
experiencing overfishing, applying domestic criteria. The 2017 
assessment estimated that total North Atlantic shortfin mako catches 
across all ICCAT parties are currently between 3,600 and 4,750 metric 
tons (mt) per year. The assessment further indicated that such total 
catches would have to be at or below 1,000 mt (72-79 percent 
reductions) to prevent further population declines, and total catches 
of 500 mt or less would be expected to stop overfishing and begin 
rebuilding the stock.
    Based on this information and given that the stock is primarily 
caught in association with ICCAT fisheries, ICCAT at its November 2017 
meeting

[[Page 5359]]

adopted management measures for Atlantic shortfin mako in 
Recommendation 17-08. The measures largely focused on maximizing live 
releases of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, allowing retention only in 
certain limited circumstances, increasing minimum size limits for 
retention, and improving data collection in ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT 
stated that the measures in the Recommendation were ``expected to 
prevent the population from decreasing further, stop overfishing and 
begin to rebuild the stock.''
    On March 2, 2018, NMFS implemented an interim final rule using 
emergency authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(c), 
to quickly implement measures in the HMS recreational and commercial 
fisheries consistent with Recommendation 17-08. The emergency measures 
were initially effective for 180 days, and on August 22, 2018, they 
were extended to March 3, 2019 (83 FR 42452). This final rule is 
intended to replace these emergency measures with long-term measures.
    A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 11 of the 
Consolidated HMS FMP was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 
2018 (83 FR 9255) and provided notice of the availability of an Issues 
and Options document for scoping. Based on the alternatives presented 
and commented on during scoping, NMFS published a proposed rule for 
Draft Amendment 11 on July 27, 2018 (83 FR 35590), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the notice of 
availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on July 
27, 2018 (83 FR 35637). The details of this rulemaking can be found in 
the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
    During the comment period on the proposed rule and DEIS, which 
lasted for 73 days, NMFS conducted six public hearings (Texas, Florida, 
North Carolina, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) and a public webinar. In 
addition, NMFS presented Draft Amendment 11 to the Atlantic HMS 
Advisory Panel, four Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Councils (the 
New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico 
Fishery Management Councils), and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission. The comment period ended on October 8, 2018. The comments 
received on Draft Amendment 11 and its proposed rule, and responses to 
those comments, are summarized below in the section labeled ``Response 
to Comments.''
    This final rule implements the measures preferred and analyzed in 
the FEIS for Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP in order to 
address and establish a foundation for rebuilding the North Atlantic 
shortfin mako shark stock, which ICCAT will adopt in 2019 after 
obtaining additional scientific information, as set out in 
Recommendation 17-08. It also includes a clarification to the 
regulatory definition of ``FL (fork length),'' as proposed and 
discussed in the DEIS and FEIS. The FEIS analyzed the direct, indirect, 
and cumulative impacts on the human environment as a result of the 
preferred management measures. The FEIS, including the preferred 
management measures, was made available on December 21, 2018 (83 FR 
65670). On February 15, 2019, the Assistant Administrator for NOAA 
signed a Record of Decision (ROD) adopting these measures as Final 
Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. A copy of the FEIS, 
including Final Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, is 
available from the HMS Management Division (see ADDRESSES). In the 
FEIS, NMFS divided the alternatives into the following four broad 
categories for organizational clarity and to facilitate effective 
review: Commercial fishery, recreational fishery, monitoring, and 
rebuilding. NMFS fully considered 29 alternatives within these 
categories and is implementing five measures, one in the commercial 
fishery, two in the recreational fishery (each regarding a different 
regulation type), one regarding monitoring, and one regarding 
rebuilding the stock, to meet the objectives of the rule and achieve at 
least a 75 percent reduction in U.S. shortfin mako shark landings 
consistent with the suggested level of reduction recommended in the 
stock assessment. The stock assessment recommends this level of 
reduction throughout the stock's range, and all ICCAT parties fishing 
on the stock are committed to take the specified measures to achieve 
the needed reductions. NMFS' detailed analyses of the alternatives are 
provided in the FEIS for Draft Amendment 11 (see ADDRESSES for how to 
get a copy of the FEIS) and a summary is provided in the FRFA below.
    In developing the final measures, NMFS considered the commercial 
retention restrictions and the 83-inch FL recreational minimum size 
limit temporarily put in place through the emergency interim final 
rule, public comments received on that rule, other conservation and 
management measures that have been implemented in the HMS fisheries 
since 2008 that have affected shark fisheries or shark bycatch in other 
fisheries, and public comments received on the proposed rule and DEIS, 
including comments provided at the September 2018 HMS Advisory Panel 
meeting. In response to public comment on the proposed rule and the 
DEIS, NMFS made three changes from the proposed rule in the final rule. 
The first change adopts a new commercial measure that is a modified 
version of the previously preferred measure. A second change adopts a 
different recreational size limit measure that was not preferred in the 
proposed rule. A third change clarifies the application of retention 
restrictions for the few permit holders who hold a commercial shark 
permit and a permit that also allows recreational landings of sharks. 
All other proposed conservation measures, as well as the proposed 
clarification of the definition of ``fork length,'' did not change 
between the proposed and final rules. Measures that are different from 
the proposed rule, or measures that were proposed but not implemented, 
are described in detail in the section titles, ``Changes from the 
Proposed Rule.''

Response to Comments

    NMFS received a total of 30 individual written comments on the 
proposed rule from fishermen, dealers, and other interested parties 
along with State of North Carolina, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the 
Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, several shark 
conservation or other environmental groups, including Oceana, and 
several commercial and recreational groups. Oral comments were received 
from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. All written 
comments can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/ by searching for 
RIN 0648-BH75. All of the comments received are summarized below.
    Comment 1: NMFS received multiple comments expressing support for 
Amendment 11 management measures as well as comments opposing 
implementation of ICCAT shortfin mako shark recommendations. Commenters 
in support of Amendment 11 wanted management measures to prevent 
overfishing of shortfin mako sharks by placing limits and restrictions 
on fishing that results in mortality of shortfin mako sharks. They also 
stressed the need for international cooperation if shortfin mako shark 
measures are to be effective and the need for all countries fishing on 
the stock to implement comparable regulations as required by ICCAT. In 
addition, some commenters cited the importance of shortfin mako sharks 
to

[[Page 5360]]

the health of ocean ecosystems. One commenter opposed any management 
measures for shortfin mako sharks, citing their understanding of 
previous ICCAT stock assessment issues, including the underlying 
uncertainties with other shark stock assessments such as the porbeagle 
shark assessment. Specifically, this commenter stated that ICCAT had 
recommended similar regulations for porbeagle sharks after a stock 
assessment, and later changed the results after the United States 
supplied additional information.
    Response: NMFS agrees that shortfin mako sharks play an important 
role in maintaining ocean ecosystems, and notes that there are 
statutory obligations to effectively manage shark fisheries, prevent 
overfishing, and achieve long-term sustainability of the stock. NMFS 
has determined that the management measures in this rule will address 
overfishing and begin the process of rebuilding the North Atlantic 
shortfin mako shark stock as required by law, understanding that any 
effective rebuilding plan or measures to end overfishing depend on 
effective international measures, given that the United States 
contributes to only a portion of the fishing mortality on the stock.
    NMFS believes that the 2017 ICCAT stock assessment for shortfin 
mako sharks is not appropriately compared to the previous stock 
assessment for porbeagle sharks and generally does not agree with the 
commenter's implication that the ICCAT assessments are routinely 
flawed. The 2017 ICCAT stock assessment for shortfin mako sharks 
included many improvements in the data and modeling compared to 
previous shark stock assessments, including past porbeagle and shortfin 
mako shark assessments. NMFS has determined that the 2017 SCRS shortfin 
mako shark stock assessment is the best scientific information 
available for shortfin mako sharks, and NMFS is using the results, as 
appropriate, as required under National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
    Comment 2: NMFS received comments about the stock assessment 
methodology and results. A commenter had concerns that the methodology 
applied in evaluating the results of different stock assessment models 
used in the 2017 shortfin mako stock assessment introduced an 
inappropriate negative bias in the overall assessment results. Other 
commenters were concerned about the large change in stock status 
between all the most recent previous ICCAT stock assessment results, 
the conversion rates used to convert dressed weight to whole weight of 
sharks, the potential for under-reporting of harvest by other ICCAT 
members particularly those countries that have larger fishing fleets 
than the United States, and the potential implications of the Marine 
Recreational Information Program (MRIP) catch estimates. These 
commenters requested that NMFS postpone implementing Amendment 11 until 
the next shortfin mako shark stock assessment is completed.
    Response: While there is always uncertainty in stock assessment 
data inputs, model outputs, and the subsequent interpretation of 
results, the SCRS methodologies appropriately considered how to best 
address such uncertainties in this particular context. The SCRS 
described these sources of uncertainty and concluded that the 2017 
stock assessment was an improvement over previous assessments for 
shortfin mako sharks, and reflects the best scientific information 
available on the status of the stock. ICCAT reviewed and accepted the 
results for use in management, and made specific recommendations which 
the United States is obligated to implement as necessary and 
appropriate under ATCA. NMFS is also required to take action to end 
overfishing and rebuild the stock under the Magnuson-Stevens Act given 
the stock's status as overfished with overfishing occurring. If future 
stock assessments reach different conclusions regarding shortfin mako 
shark stock status, and changes to management measures are recommended 
by ICCAT, or if NMFS determines that different measures are needed to 
address management of the stock, then such changes may be considered at 
that time.
    Regarding the comment expressing concern that the United States 
used incorrect conversion rates for dressed weight to whole weight of 
sharks, this issue has also come up in the context of reporting to 
ICCAT. As discussed with the ICCAT Advisory Committee at its Fall 
meeting, the United States surveyed other countries regarding the 
conversion rates and the manner in which those countries dress their 
sharks and then reviewed the data it submitted to ICCAT. Based on this 
review of the data and the survey of other countries' conversion 
factors, the United States found errors in the shortfin mako shark 
commercial landings data previously submitted to ICCAT and determined 
that changing the conversion rate to match that used by Spain and 
Canada was appropriate. Accordingly, the United States submitted 
revised estimates to ICCAT of U.S. harvest for all years. NMFS has 
accordingly updated all the numbers from the DEIS in the FEIS to 
reflect the updated analyses, since the numbers in the DEIS were based 
on the ICCAT submissions. As a result of these revised estimates, the 
U.S. proportion of shortfin mako catches compared to all catches by all 
countries was reduced from 11 percent to 9 percent. For U.S. harvest, 
these changes also resulted in a recalculation of the relative 
contribution of commercial and recreational fisheries to domestic 
shortfin mako shark mortality. The proportion of recreational to 
commercial harvest is not equally split with recreational harvest 
accounting for 58 percent and commercial harvest (including landings 
and dead discards) accounting for 42 percent.
    Comment 3: NMFS received comments regarding the timing and process 
of this rulemaking. Commenters urged NMFS to implement management 
measures immediately based on the best available science to rebuild the 
stock and end overfishing. Other commenters are concerned that this 
rulemaking is premature since ICCAT could make changes in upcoming 
meetings. Some commenters felt the United States should not act 
unilaterally, and implement a rebuilding plan without ICCAT. Another 
commenter stated that NMFS has two years to implement rebuilding plans 
and management measures once the stock is determined to be overfished 
and requested that NMFS wait to implement Amendment 11.
    Response: Amendment 11 is responsive to ICCAT Recommendation 17-08, 
which is a binding recommendation under the ICCAT Convention, and the 
United States is obligated to implement it through regulations as 
necessary and appropriate under ATCA. Due to the requirements in 
Recommendation 17-08 and the status of shortfin mako sharks, NMFS 
worked to immediately implement the requirements in Recommendation 17-
08 via an emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). 
Under sections 305(c) and 304(e)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS 
has the authority to implement interim measures to reduce overfishing 
on an emergency basis for 180 days. Those measures can be extended 
again for another 186 days if necessary. NMFS later extended the 
emergency rule for another 186 days; these emergency measures expire on 
March 3, 2019 (83 FR 42452; August 22, 2018). NMFS aims to have the 
management measures in Amendment 11 in place by the time the emergency 
rule expires or soon thereafter. If ICCAT changes the measures in 
Recommendation 17-08 at future meetings, then the United States will be

[[Page 5361]]

responsive to those changes, consistent with ATCA and the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. NMFS does not have discretion to delay implementation of 
management measures adopted at ICCAT simply because we anticipate there 
may be additional or different ICCAT recommendations in the future. 
This action does not implement a unilateral rebuilding plan in U.S. 
waters for shortfin mako sharks. This action establishes the foundation 
for an international, ICCAT-recommended rebuilding plan, understanding 
that ICCAT intends to adopt such a plan in the future and that the 
United States will advocate for its development at that forum.
    Regarding the comment on the two-year timeframe to implement 
management measures being a reason to delay implementation, we note 
that we have an obligation to implement the measures under ATCA and the 
ICCAT treaty, and that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to take 
measures to end overfishing and to rebuild the stocks. The regulatory 
process to amend the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP is a lengthy process 
involving significant public input and review; the two-year reference 
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not to be read as a delay in starting 
that process, which could prevent measures from being timely 
implemented. Section 304(e)(6) allows for interim measures to reduce 
overfishing to be put in place until a FMP amendment can be finalized; 
this section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act only allows for these interim 
measures to be put in place pursuant to section 305(c), which limits 
the amount of time emergency measures can be effective to 366 days. 
Based on these regulations, NMFS published the emergency interim final 
rule per the authority in sections 305(c) and 304(e)(6) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is implementing long-term management measures 
to address overfishing and establish a foundation for rebuilding 
shortfin mako sharks with Amendment 11, consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
    Comment 4: NMFS received comments in support of adding a sunset 
clause to this rulemaking, which would remove regulations implemented 
by Amendment 11 if ICCAT makes changes to Recommendation 17-08.
    Response: A ``sunset clause'' on regulations to address overfishing 
of shortfin mako sharks would not be consistent with the ICCAT 
recommendation, or the need to rebuild the stock, which could take 
decades based on the 2017 stock assessment. If ICCAT recommends changes 
to management measures in the future, NMFS would implement necessary 
and appropriate responsive regulatory changes at that time, consistent 
with applicable laws.
    Comment 5: NMFS received comments regarding the implementation of 
the ICCAT regulations and fishing operations by other countries. The 
commenters had concerns that other countries are not implementing the 
Recommendation and about the pace of the U.S. implementation when 
compared to other countries. Commenters also wondered if other ICCAT 
countries have electronic monitoring systems or observers for their 
fleets. In addition, the commenters believe that U.S. fishermen will be 
held accountable for an excessive share of the conservation burden in 
future ICCAT management measures.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that countries other than the United 
States are responsible for the majority of North Atlantic shortfin mako 
shark fishing mortality, hence the need for international coordination 
through ICCAT on measures to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. 
Regardless of other countries' capability to adequately implement and 
enforce ICCAT recommendations, the United States remains obligated 
under ATCA to implement ICCAT recommendations. As a responsible party 
to ICCAT, NMFS will continue to work collaboratively within the ICCAT 
process and advocate for an effective international rebuilding plan, 
emphasizing the need for all parties to address their relative share of 
contributions to fishing mortality and for equitable management 
measures.
    Comment 6: NMFS should implement an EFH designation for shortfin 
mako sharks.
    Response: NMFS has recently updated EFH designations for shortfin 
mako sharks under Amendment 10 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. This 
process was initiated with the publication of the draft Atlantic HMS 5 
Year Review on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11981). In this review, NMFS 
identified new literature and data that should be considered in EFH 
delineation exercises, and recommended updating boundaries for shortfin 
mako sharks. There was insufficient information available per the 
guidelines listed at Sec.  600.815(a)(8)) to warrant a Habitat Area of 
Particular Concern for shortfin mako sharks. NMFS published a draft 
Environmental Assessment, which included proposed updates for shortfin 
mako shark EFH, on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 62100). NMFS received a 
number of written comments and comments at public meetings. Many 
comments included suggestions for EFH boundaries based on academic 
research. NMFS completed a review of EFH-related literature in 
developing the FEIS (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of Amendment 10 for a 
review of shortfin mako habitat and biology, and EFH impacts, 
respectively), and did not identify sufficient literature warranting 
changes to the recently updated EFH boundaries for shortfin mako 
sharks. However new data from ongoing surveys, research, and tagging 
programs was used to update EFH boundaries. EFH updates for shortfin 
mako sharks were finalized September 6, 2017 (82 FR 42329). Maps of 
final EFH boundaries for shortfin mako are available in Appendix G of 
the Final Environmental Assessment. EFH boundaries may also be viewed 
in the EFH Mapper, an online dynamic mapping tool maintained by the 
NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation (https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/). This office also maintains an EFH Data 
Inventory, which includes shapefiles of EFH boundaries that may be 
downloaded by the public (https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/newInv/). The next 5-year review process for HMS EFH will be 
initiated in 2022.
    Comment 7: NMFS received several comments suggesting that 
management measures for shortfin mako sharks should be more restrictive 
than those implemented in this rulemaking, including prohibiting all 
retention of shortfin mako sharks, or other more restrictive measures, 
as the science recommends.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that more restrictive measures are 
required or necessary at this time. The management measures in 
Amendment 11 are consistent with those recommended in ICCAT 
Recommendation 17-08 and with NMFS' obligations to address overfishing 
and rebuilding, understanding that the stock is fished internationally 
and requires international measures to effectively address these 
issues. The selected measures are expected to reduce U.S. shortfin mako 
shark catch consistent with the SCRS recommendation (72-79 percent), 
while still permitting fishermen to retain shortfin mako sharks under 
limited circumstances. Given the species' North Atlantic-wide range and 
that United States catches constitute only approximately nine percent 
of total North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catch, the United States 
cannot unilaterally end overfishing and rebuild the stock through 
domestic regulations alone, even if there were to be a total 
prohibition on possession (which has not been recommended by ICCAT).

[[Page 5362]]

Ending overfishing and rebuilding the stock can only be accomplished 
through international coordination with nations that harvest the 
majority of shortfin mako sharks. NMFS will work with ICCAT members to 
evaluate the effectiveness of these measures, update stock assessment 
projections, establish a rebuilding plan, and develop additional 
measures if necessary.
    Comment 8: NMFS received comments in support of the proposed 
preferred commercial alternative (A2), as well as other comments that 
suggested modifications to Alternative A2. Several commenters along 
with the State of Georgia and the South Atlantic and New England 
Fishery Management Councils supported Alternative A2 (the preferred 
Alternative at the proposed rule stage) since this Alternative is 
consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08, utilized electronic 
monitoring, and allowed NMFS to collect real time landings and 
additional data. NMFS also received comments including from the State 
of North Carolina, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and HMS Advisory 
Panel members supporting Alternative A2 with modifications. 
Specifically, the State of North Carolina along with other individuals 
suggested a modification that would allow the retention of dead 
shortfin mako sharks caught as bycatch in gillnet and bottom longline 
fisheries. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and some HMS Advisory 
Panel members suggested a modification that would allow the retention 
of dead shortfin mako sharks by any vessel as long as there is an 
electronic monitoring system or an observer on board the vessel, 
similar to Alternative A5. These commenters also supported Alternative 
A3, which would allow vessels the option to opt out of the electronic 
monitoring system review.
    Response: ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 included a variety of measures 
to reduce shortfin mako shark fishing mortality and to increase live 
releases in response to the 2017 ICCAT North Atlantic shortfin mako 
shark stock assessment. Among these measures was the option to require 
the release of shortfin mako sharks brought to the vessel alive in 
ICCAT fisheries. This option also allows for the retention of shortfin 
mako sharks in ICCAT fisheries that are dead at haulback, provided an 
electronic monitoring system is installed, or an observer is on board 
to verify the disposition of the shark. In Draft Amendment 11, NMFS 
preferred to implement Alternative A2, which limited the retention of 
dead shortfin mako sharks to those caught on vessels with an electronic 
monitoring system. While the draft amendment preferred alternative did 
not limit the gear types that could be used to catch and retain dead 
shortfin mako sharks, the requirement to have an electronic monitoring 
system installed largely limited the measure to pelagic longline 
vessels since these vessels are already required to have electronic 
monitoring systems. Alternative A2 would satisfy the requirements of 
Recommendation 17-08 and also decrease fishing mortality of shortfin 
mako sharks. A large number of commenters expressed support for this 
measure. A full analysis of the ecological and socioeconomic impacts 
for Alternative A2 is provided in Chapter 4 of the FEIS.
    However, during the public comment period, commenters that 
expressed support for the preferred Alternative A2 in Draft Amendment 
11 also voiced support for allowing retention of dead shortfin mako 
sharks in other, non-ICCAT fishery gear types. Although Alternative A2 
did not limit the ability to retain dead shortfin mako sharks to 
pelagic longline vessels, the requirement to install a costly 
electronic monitoring system to do so may have effectively limited the 
allowance for retention to the pelagic longline fishery. HMS-permitted 
pelagic longline vessels are already required to have electronic 
monitoring systems on board, but vessels using other gear types are 
unlikely to install the costly system in order to retain shortfin mako 
sharks, especially considering the relatively low ex-vessel value. 
Thus, the practical effect of Alternative A2 could be to limit the 
measure to pelagic longline vessels. To address the public comments on 
the Proposed Rule for Amendment 11, NMFS is implementing Alternative 
A7, an alternative added and analyzed in the FEIS and adopted in this 
final rule. Alternative A7 is a slight modification and outgrowth of 
Alternative A2. Under preferred Alternative A7, shortfin mako sharks 
caught using gillnet, bottom longline, or pelagic longline gear on 
properly-permitted vessels could be retained, provided they are dead at 
haulback. In the case of pelagic longline vessels, an electronic 
monitoring system would still be required, as proposed, but an 
electronic monitoring system would not be required on vessels that use 
bottom longline or gillnet gear. To be responsive to public comments, 
NMFS reviewed the available data for shortfin mako shark interactions 
by vessels that use bottom longline and gillnet gear. After reviewing 
the information and considering past actions, NMFS decided to add 
Alternative A7 as the preferred alternative. One of the alternatives in 
the proposed rule analyzed and considered retention within the bottom 
longline and gillnet fisheries, and public comment on the alternatives 
resulted in the development of Alternative A7. Commenters thus could 
reasonably have anticipated this alternative, which is a logical 
outgrowth of the alternatives considered, and is consistent with the 
ICCAT measure's application to sharks ``caught in association with 
ICCAT fisheries.'' This alternative is largely the same as Alternative 
A2 except that it allows retention of dead shortfin mako sharks in the 
bottom longline and the gillnet fisheries without requiring an observer 
or electronic monitoring system on board. Shortfin mako sharks are 
rarely caught with bottom longline and gillnet gear. Based on observer 
data, only 40 shortfin mako sharks were caught with bottom longline and 
gillnet gear from 2012 to 2017. Due to the low number of observed 
interactions, it is doubtful any of these landings were the result of 
targeted fishing so it is unlikely more could be done to avoid them. 
NMFS will also continue to track landings and consider additional 
measures if it appeared that an increase in retention results from this 
action, which is extremely unlikely. Retaining an additional six to 
seven dead sharks per year will have no additional negative effects on 
the stock than considered in the proposed rule, and the United States 
will still achieve the needed reductions in mortality with this 
alternative. In addition, allowing retention by these gear types will 
reduce regulatory dead discards in the non-ICCAT fisheries.
    No other commercial gear types would be able to land shortfin mako 
sharks under this alternative. While it is possible for other 
commercial gears to catch shortfin mako sharks (e.g., rod and reel and 
bandit gear), these gears are primarily recreational and are rarely 
used to fish for sharks commercially. Buoy gear in particular can 
interact with shortfin mako sharks but is not an authorized gear; this 
rule does not change that. Under this alternative, all shortfin mako 
sharks would need to be released if caught commercially on these other 
commercial gears, with the exception described below for those vessels 
that hold both a commercial shark permit and a permit with a shark 
endorsement that allows for recreational shark landings. This approach 
is consistent with previous rulemakings that implemented ICCAT 
recommendations for sharks (e.g., prohibiting retention of silky, 
hammerhead, oceanic whitetip, or porbeagle sharks in ICCAT fisheries: 
76

[[Page 5363]]

FR 53652, August 29, 2011; 77 FR 60632, October 4, 2012; 81 FR 57803, 
August 24, 2016). In those cases, NMFS applied ICCAT measures for 
sharks only to the pelagic longline fishery and the handgear fisheries 
when swordfish or tunas are retained because they are considered ICCAT 
fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species. NMFS consistently determined 
that U.S. bottom longline and gillnet vessels are not part of an ICCAT 
fishery because these gears do not regularly catch or land ICCAT 
managed species such as swordfish or tunas. In other words, Alternative 
A7, which would allow landings of dead shortfin mako sharks caught by 
these non-ICCAT fishery gear types, is consistent with past U.S. 
actions.
    Additionally, ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 allows retention of 
shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback without the verification 
of electronic monitoring or observers in certain limited circumstances, 
including for vessels under 12 meters. Most vessels that have a 
Directed shark LAP and use bottom longline or gillnet gear have vessel 
lengths that are below 12 meters. In 2017, bottom longline vessels that 
interacted with sharks (based on coastal fisheries and HMS logbook 
reports) averaged 11.4 meters in length. In 2017, gillnet vessels that 
interacted with sharks (based on coastal fisheries and HMS logbook 
reports) averaged 9.6 meters in length. Thus, given past rulemakings 
and given the length of most vessels that target sharks, allowing 
landings of dead shortfin mako sharks by these other gear types is 
appropriate and consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08.
    Comment 9: NMFS received a suggestion for potential management 
measures if more commercial regulations are needed to protect the 
shortfin mako stock. The commenter suggested that NMFS implement a 
seasonal incidental limit of 18 shortfin mako sharks per trip during 
the summer months.
    Response: The preferred alternatives in Final Amendment 11 are 
consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 and are designed to address 
the United States' contribution to the overfishing of shortfin mako 
sharks. If future ICCAT SCRS analyses determine that additional 
shortfin mako shark mortality reductions are needed, NMFS would 
consider other options, consistent with any ICCAT recommendations. At 
this time, a seasonal commercial limit of shortfin mako sharks is not 
consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 and it is unclear if it 
would achieve mortality reduction targets.
    Comment 10: NMFS received a comment that the combination of 
preferred alternatives at the proposed rule stage, specifically 
Alternatives A2 and B3, would cause commercial shark permits that are 
held with HMS Charter/Headboat permits to be ``worthless.'' Such 
fishermen hold both permits to allow them to sell sharks caught as 
bycatch when fishing for tuna with handline gear. The proposed 
combination of alternatives would require such a dual-permitted vessel 
to use only pelagic longline gear, to have an electronic monitoring 
system, and to only land shortfin mako sharks that were greater than 83 
inches fork length that were dead at haulback. These requirements would 
apply even when fishing on a for-hire trip.
    Response: The commenter was correct that under the proposed 
alternatives it was unlikely that a dual-permitted vessel (which could 
include a variety of permits including, for example, those vessels that 
hold a commercial shark permit and an Atlantic Tunas General category 
permit that allows for retention of sharks when participating in a 
registered tournament) could land shortfin mako sharks. Additionally, 
NMFS realized this concern about permit combinations could apply to 
many combinations of the commercial and recreational alternatives 
considered. NMFS did not intend for this effect as a result of the 
proposed rule. As such, in the FEIS, NMFS is clarifying how the 
recreational limits would apply to the few individuals who hold a 
commercial shark vessel permit in addition to one of a variety of other 
vessel permits, such as HMS Charter/Headboat, that allow for 
recreational landings of sharks. These vessels generally fish with rod 
and reel or other handgear as opposed to pelagic longline, bottom 
longline, or gillnet gear. However, these vessels are part of the ICCAT 
fishery as they regularly target tunas, billfish, and swordfish. For 
the sake of clarity, NMFS would restrict these permit holders to the 
recreational shark requirements when shortfin mako sharks are onboard 
and prohibit them from selling any sharks when recreationally retaining 
shortfin mako sharks.
    Comment 11: NMFS received comments both in support of and opposed 
to Alternative B3, which was the preferred alternative at the proposed 
rule stage. Some commenters, along with the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts and the New England Fishery Management Council, supported 
Alternative B2 and management measures to protect shortfin mako sharks 
until they reach maturity. These commenters generally felt that the 
United States strongly supported the adopted size restrictions at 
ICCAT, and that NMFS should not now go beyond the recommendations. 
These commenters noted that the same minimum size under the emergency 
rule reduced U.S. landings beyond the suggested reduction of 72 to 79 
percent. Other commenters noted that NMFS underestimated potential 
reductions in landings in their analysis of the recreational 
alternatives because they did not account for reductions in the number 
of trips that would target shortfin mako sharks. The State of North 
Carolina supported Alternative B3 and specifically noted that if NMFS 
chooses Alternative B2 instead, NMFS should include shark sex 
identification facts on the HMS shark endorsement quiz and other 
outreach material. Commenters from the Gulf of Mexico supported 
Alternative B3 because they commonly interact with shortfin mako sharks 
larger than 83 inches fork length (FL). NMFS also received comments 
from individuals as well as the State of Georgia and the South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council in support of the Alternative B3, which 
would establish a single recreational size limit of 83 inches FL, and 
is consistent with the measure established in the emergency rule. In 
general, these commenters felt the one size limit in Alternative B3 
would remove any confusion recreational fishermen may have in 
identifying shortfin mako sharks by sex. Additionally, NMFS received 
requests for NMFS to consider other minimum sizes that are smaller than 
the preferred alternative of 83 inches FL. These commenters felt that 
NMFS should protect the larger, breeding female sharks over 83 inches 
FL and implement a smaller minimum size, such as 72 or 75 inches FL, 
for male sharks since those sharks still provide a decent amount of 
meat.
    Response: Based on the public comment and current recreational 
estimated harvest under the emergency regulations (83 inches FL for all 
shortfin mako sharks), NMFS has decided to change the preferred 
alternative in the Final Amendment 11 to Alternative B2, which 
establishes different minimum sizes for male and female shortfin mako 
shark retention (71 inches FL size limit for male and 83 inches FL size 
limit for female shortfin mako sharks). In Draft Amendment 11 and the 
emergency interim final rule, the minimum size limit was increased to 
83 inches FL for both males and females (Alternative B3) to 
significantly reduce shortfin mako

[[Page 5364]]

shark recreational mortality and address overfishing. One size was used 
for both sexes for reasons discussed in the emergency interim final 
rule and proposed rule. Updated data gathered from operations occurring 
under the emergency interim rule provisions indicate, however, that 
this approach would be unnecessarily restrictive for the longer term. 
While the shortfin mako shark landings under the 83-inch FL size limit 
met the suggested reduction target by weight, the size limit exceeded 
the target reduction in numbers of sharks harvested. As described in 
Chapter 4 of the FEIS, Large Pelagics Survey (LPS) data indicated there 
was a substantial reduction in recreational trips targeting shortfin 
mako sharks as a result of implementation of the emergency interim 
rule. The recreational landings data observed in the LPS suggest that 
the separate size limits for male and female sharks now preferred under 
Alternative B2 should still accomplish the suggested mortality 
reduction targets while having less detrimental economic impacts on the 
recreational shark fishery.
    Furthermore, studies have indicated that protecting sub-adult 
sharks is key to conserving and rebuilding shark populations (see 
Chapter 4 of the FEIS). Sub-adults are generally those juvenile sharks 
that are a year or two away from becoming mature adults. While the now-
preferred Alternative B2 will allow greater harvest of male shortfin 
mako sharks, those sharks will still be mature individuals as 71 inches 
FL is the size of maturity for male shortfin mako sharks. Given that 
studies have indicated that protecting sub-adult sharks is key to 
conserving and rebuilding shark populations, Alternative B2 ensures 
that sub-adults would still be adequately protected by establishing 
minimum size limits for male and female sharks based on their size at 
maturity. NMFS also anticipates that the now-preferred Alternative B2, 
which allows recreational fishermen the opportunity to harvest smaller 
male sharks, will help relieve fishing pressure on the larger female 
sharks, which were estimated to comprise approximately 75 percent of 
the harvest under the preferred alternative from the emergency interim 
final rule (Alternative B3), which established only one size for both 
males and females. Landings data from the LPS shows that female 
shortfin mako sharks over 83 inches FL historically made up only about 
12 percent of the overall harvest. Under a single 83 inches FL size 
limit it is highly likely most vessels that successfully harvest a 
shark over 83 inches FL will have already caught and released several 
smaller male sharks first. Since recreational fishermen are only 
allowed to harvest one shortfin mako shark per vessel per day, 
establishing a separate and significantly smaller size limit for male 
sharks will greatly increase the probability that the first legal sized 
shark a vessel interacts with will thus be a male shark which should 
lead to fewer female sharks ultimately being harvested.
    Since the final preferred alternative (Alternative B2) establishes 
a different minimum size limit for each sex of shortfin mako shark 
species, NMFS intends to include information on properly distinguishing 
between male and female sharks on all related outreach materials, web 
page, and the shark endorsement video (which is mandatory for all HMS 
permit holders that wish to retain sharks recreationally). NMFS also 
expects to provide such information to registered HMS shark tournaments 
to make sure participants are aware of the separate size limits and how 
to distinguish between male and female sharks. NMFS will continue to 
monitor recreational landings of shortfin mako sharks, and would take 
action to increase the minimum size limit if recreational landings 
targets are not meet or if enforcing separate size limits by sex proves 
to be impractical.
    Comment 12: NMFS received a comment stating that the seasonal 
recreational alternatives would not allow Gulf of Mexico fishermen 
ample opportunity to land shortfin mako sharks since they primarily 
target the species outside of the months considered in the alternative.
    Response: NMFS did not prefer Alternative B6, or any of its sub-
alternatives, in the proposed rule due to the potential for inequitable 
fishing opportunities this alternative could create in terms of 
regional access to the shortfin mako shark recreational fishery. NMFS 
now prefers Alternative B2, which establishes a minimum size limit of 
71 inches FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks, 
which would mean all recreational fishermen would have the same 
regulations regardless of where and when they decide to fish.
    Comment 13: NMFS received comments in support of the no action 
recreational alternative (Alternative B1). Specifically, commenters 
supported keeping the shortfin mako shark recreational minimum size at 
status quo (54 inches FL) since they feel the population decline is not 
due to the recreational fishery and the recreational fishery should not 
be impacted by other fisheries.
    Response: While NMFS recognizes that the U.S. recreational fishery 
for shortfin mako sharks only makes up a small portion of the overall 
international harvest, its contribution to the total U.S. catch is 
larger than the commercial fishery landings. According to data 
presented in the Final Amendment 11, the U.S. recreational fishery 
accounts on average for 58 percent of the total U.S. catch, while the 
commercial fishery accounts on average for 42 percent. Therefore, U.S. 
recreational fisheries have a significant role to play in reducing 
fishing mortality on shortfin mako sharks, and must be included in 
management of this overfished stock. Furthermore, the no action 
alternative would fail to meet the minimum requirements set forth in 
ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 and would be inconsistent with U.S. 
obligations under the ICCAT treaty, ATCA, and other legal requirements.
    Comment 14: NMFS received comments in support of Alternative B8, 
which would establish a tagging program to implement a per season limit 
for recreational fishermen.
    Response: At this time, NMFS does not intend to implement a tagging 
program for recreationally harvested shortfin mako sharks since the 
final preferred alternative (Alternative B2) to establish minimum sizes 
would sufficiently reduce the recreational harvest levels. In addition, 
tagging programs are complicated to implement for a variety of reasons 
including the need to assign a limited number of tags via raffle, and 
the extra time and resources required to track them when reported. As 
discussed in the FEIS, NMFS would need to assign tags via raffle as the 
number of HMS permit holders with shark endorsements far exceeds the 
number of shortfin mako sharks that could be harvested and still meet 
the recommended reduction target of 72 to 79 percent. For these 
reasons, NMFS does not prefer a tagging program at this time.
    Comment 15: NMFS received a comment suggesting that we change the 
shortfin mako shark recreational fishery to be similar to the bluefin 
tuna recreational fishery regulations. The commenter suggested a 
shortfin mako shark recreational fishery where permit holders would be 
restricted to one trophy shark over 83 inches FL, one smaller shark 
between 65 to 83 inches FL, and a 2 shark per season limit per 
recreational shark permit.
    Response: The management regime suggested in this comment would be 
similar to the implementation of a

[[Page 5365]]

tagging program in that such a program would require NMFS to monitor a 
seasonal bag limit. Similar to the tagging program, NMFS has determined 
that such a management program is unnecessary to accomplish the 
recommended reduction in landings as the minimum size limits currently 
under consideration would reduce overall harvest to far fewer than two 
sharks per permitted vessel per season. Furthermore, a 65 inch FL size 
limit for shortfin mako sharks would be below the size limits 
stipulated in ICCAT Recommendation 17-08, and would fail to meet U.S. 
obligations to implement binding ICCAT recommendations under ATCA.
    Comment 16: NMFS received support and opposition for the preferred 
alternative (Alternative B9) to implement circle hooks in the 
recreational fishery. Some commenters along with the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts and the South Atlantic and New England Fishery Management 
Councils supported the preferred alternative due to the benefits of 
live release of sharks that may provide enhanced survivorship in some 
species. The State of Georgia opposed the implementation of circle 
hooks in the recreational fishery for sharks in federal waters due to 
its ``questionable administration by law enforcement officers'' and the 
unnecessary burden it will place on recreational anglers. In addition, 
the State of Georgia noted that it does not intend to adopt circle 
hooks in state waters.
    Response: Research shows that the use of circle hooks reduces gut-
hooking and increases post-release survival in shortfin mako sharks. 
French et al. (2015) examined the effects of recreational fishing 
techniques, including hook type, on shortfin mako sharks and found that 
circle hooks were more likely to hook shortfin mako sharks in the jaw 
compared to J-hooks. In the study, circle hooks were most likely to 
hook in the jaw (83 percent of the time) while J-hooks most commonly 
hooked in the throat (33 percent of the time) or gut (27 percent of the 
time). J-hooks only hooked in the jaw of shortfin mako sharks 20 
percent of the time. Jaw-hooking is correlated with increased odds of 
post release survival. For these and other reasons (e.g., endangered 
species interactions), NMFS prefers this alternative. In addition, 
circle hooks are already required by HMS permitted commercial and 
recreational, except for north of 41[deg]43' N latitude (near Chatham, 
Massachusetts), fishermen.
    While NMFS recognizes the State of Georgia's concern regarding 
enforceability, circle hooks have been required by HMS recreational 
permit holders since January 1, 2018, and other states, such as the 
State of New York, also requires the use of circle hooks when fishing 
for sharks. In Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS 
required the use of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks by HMS 
recreational permit holders with a shark endorsement when fishing for 
sharks recreationally, except when fishing with flies or artificial 
lures, in federal waters south of 41[deg]43' N latitude (near Chatham, 
Massachusetts). The final preferred Alternative (Alternative B9) would 
remove this line and require circle hooks when fishing recreationally 
for sharks in all areas, except when fishing with flies or artificial 
lures.
    Comment 17: NMFS received a comment inquiring whether the new MRIP 
estimates would impact this rulemaking or future stock assessment.
    Response: Recently, NMFS released new MRIP effort and catch 
estimate time series following the implementation of the new Fishing 
Effort Survey (FES) designed for the collection of private boat and 
shore-based fishing effort data, and its calibration with the data 
collected by the historic Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS). 
The implications of the revised estimates on all managed species will 
not be fully understood for several years until they make their way 
through the rigorous scientific stock assessment process. In the coming 
years, the new and revised data will be incorporated into stock 
assessments at the domestic and international level as appropriate. 
However, NOAA Fisheries' primary source of recreational catch data for 
shortfin mako sharks is the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS) which does not 
rely on the FES, and as a result the estimates generated by the LPS 
used in this rulemaking have not changed.
    Comment 18: NMFS received a comment stating that banning tournament 
fishing for sharks would help to end overfishing, and that NMFS would 
be justified in doing so on the grounds that tournament awards add a 
commercial component to what is supposed to be a recreational fishery. 
The commenter also stated that recreationally harvested fish should 
only be used for personal consumption, and not monetized.
    Response: While tournaments do make up a significant portion of the 
recreational shark fishery, NMFS is not in favor of prohibiting shark 
tournaments as a means to address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks 
for a number of reasons. First, tournaments can provide significant 
economic benefits to the coastal communities in which they are held. 
Second, banning tournament or sport fishing while still allowing 
recreational harvest would constitute an inequitable access of the 
resource to the problem of overfishing between tournament and non-
tournament recreational fishermen, and would set a precedent that would 
conflict with the management of other U.S. fisheries. Retention of HMS, 
including shortfin mako sharks submitted for weigh-in to tournaments, 
is authorized under the regulations by the permitted vessel that caught 
the fish. Even in cases where anglers donate their fish to the 
tournament, the tournament is not allowed to sell the fish, but may 
only donate the fish for human consumption to food banks or other 
charities.
    For HMS fisheries, most tournament participants hold recreational 
permits or commercial permits that only allow for recreational landings 
of sharks when used during a registered HMS tournament. None of these 
participants are allowed to sell their catch. Many commercial 
businesses are associated with recreational fisheries including for-
hire vessels, bait and tackle shops, and fishing guides. Like 
tournaments, all of these operations service recreational anglers. The 
distinction between recreational and commercial fishing lies solely in 
whether the fish themselves are sold commercially, not in whether a 
business associated with an activity is providing a commercial service. 
Many shark tournaments are already moving to catch-and-release formats, 
or are shying away from targeting shark species that are not widely 
considered to be edible.
    Comment 19: NMFS received support and opposition for the preferred 
alternative of no action Alternative C1. Some commenters along with the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Georgia, and South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council supported the preferred alternative since it 
would not add any additional reporting requirements for fishermen. 
However, commenters also were concerned that some registered HMS 
tournaments are currently not required to report their catches of all 
HMS. Some commenters opposed the preferred alternative since it would 
create inconsistency with the SCRS advice to gather more data and 
information on shortfin mako sharks and therefore would negatively 
impact science and stock assessments. Some individuals along with the 
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council suggested that NMFS should 
implement mandatory reporting for all recreationally landed and 
discarded shortfin mako sharks. The Mid-Atlantic

[[Page 5366]]

Fishery Management Council stated that it is imperative to collect data 
from commercial and recreational fishermen on landings and discards. 
Other commenters would like equivalent monitoring and accountability 
requirements for all U.S. HMS fisheries, and to fully and accurately 
account for all sources of fishing mortality.
    Response: There are already a number of reporting requirements 
under current HMS regulations for commercial and recreational fishermen 
fishing for shortfin mako sharks. HMS commercial fishermen report 
shortfin mako shark catches through vessel logbooks along with dealer 
reporting of landings. Under Alternative C1, HMS recreational anglers 
fishing from Maine to Virginia would continue to be required to report 
shortfin mako shark landings and releases if intercepted by the LPS, 
and data would continue to be collected on shortfin mako shark catches 
by the APIS, which is part of MRIP. As of January 1, 2019, all 
registered HMS tournaments will be selected for tournament reporting, 
which should account for a significant component of recreational 
shortfin mako shark landings (83 FR 63831; December 12, 2018). In 
addition, most for-hire vessels fishing in the federal waters in the 
Mid-Atlantic area (New York to New Carolina) are currently required by 
the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to submit electronic vessel 
trip reports for all their trips within 24 hours, thus providing 
another major data stream for shortfin mako shark landings. These 
current reporting systems will allow NMFS to effectively monitor the 
recreational harvest of the stock using a combination of traditional 
intercept surveys, tournament reporting, and electronic reporting 
making the implementation of mandatory 24-hour reporting unnecessary at 
this time.
    NMFS understands that some constituents do not think there is 
equitable reporting across HMS fisheries; however, the current 
reporting systems mentioned above should account for all sources of 
fishing mortality for shortfin mako sharks. NMFS will continue to 
monitor the landings by commercial and recreational fishermen to 
determine if the current reporting systems are sufficiently accounting 
for shortfin mako shark mortality.
    Comment 20: NMFS received a comment in support of requiring 
mandatory reporting with vessel monitoring systems (VMS) if it would 
simplify commercial fishermen's reporting burden, improve the reporting 
of HMS catches across all gears, and improve scientific data. The 
commenters were not supportive of the alternative that would create 
another unnecessary burden on commercial fishermen.
    Response: NMFS agrees that requiring mandatory reporting of 
shortfin mako sharks via VMS could potentially, and unnecessarily, 
increase burden to HMS commercial vessels that already report in other 
ways (vessel logbooks, dealer reports of landings, and electronic 
monitoring system) that are sufficient reporting systems for improving 
data collection for shortfin mako sharks. In addition, given the 
current reporting requirements for all HMS commercial vessels that 
already enable inseason monitoring and management of shortfin mako 
sharks, NMFS did not prefer this alternative at this time. Furthermore, 
NMFS is already implementing electronic HMS logbooks on a voluntary 
basis to improve the timeliness of reporting, and provide data for 
management.
    Comment 21: NMFS received support and opposition for the preferred 
alternative. Some commenters along with the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, the State of Georgia, and the South Atlantic and Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils supported the preferred 
alternative to develop an international rebuilding plan with ICCAT to 
assist with rebuilding the stock and work with other countries to 
implement international management measures. A commenter who opposed 
the preferred alternative wants NMFS to implement a domestic rebuilding 
plan along with the international plan, while other commenters prefer 
that NMFS wait until ICCAT takes further action before finalizing the 
rebuilding plan.
    Response: North Atlantic shortfin mako shark distribution spans a 
large portion of the North Atlantic Ocean basin and many countries 
besides the United States interact with the species. Therefore, NMFS 
believes that addressing overfishing and preventing an overfished 
status can only effectively be accomplished through international 
efforts where other countries that have large landings of shortfin mako 
sharks actively and equitably participate in mortality reduction and 
rebuilding plan discussions. Because of the small U.S. contribution to 
North Atlantic shortfin mako shark mortality, domestic reductions of 
shortfin mako shark mortality alone would not end overfishing of the 
entire North Atlantic stock. For these reasons and for the reasons 
described in response to comment 3 above, NMFS prefers Alternative D3, 
which would establish the foundation for developing an international 
rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks.
    Comment 22: NMFS received a comment in support of the alternative 
to remove shortfin mako sharks from the pelagic shark management group 
and establish a separate management group with quota for the species.
    Response: At this time, NMFS does not prefer a shortfin mako shark-
specific quota. ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 did not include individual 
country allocations for shortfin mako sharks upon which to base a 
domestic quota. It is also not clear that a quota would adequately 
protect the stock by reducing mortality because quotas allow for sharks 
that are live at haulback to be landed. Also, it is difficult at this 
time to determine if setting a species-specific quota for shortfin mako 
sharks would have positive ecological benefits for the stock, as this 
scenario was not explored in the stock assessment. A species-specific 
quota for shortfin mako sharks would require authorized fishermen to 
discard all shortfin mako sharks once the quota is reached, potentially 
leading to an increase in regulatory discards, which would not result 
in decreased mortality of shortfin mako sharks and thus, contribute to 
the health of the stock. Additionally, commercially, shortfin mako 
sharks are most often caught with pelagic longline gear incidental to 
other target catch. Since shortfin mako sharks are rarely targeted, 
establishing a shortfin mako shark quota is unlikely to stop incidental 
fishing mortality.
    NMFS believes that ending overfishing and preventing an overfished 
status would be better accomplished through the measures preferred in 
final Amendment 11 and through further critical international efforts 
where other countries that have large landings of shortfin mako sharks 
could participate in mortality reduction discussions instead of a 
species-specific quota within the U.S. fisheries. NMFS will continue to 
monitor progress in the international forum and the needs of the stock, 
as well as whether this action has its intended effect, and will 
consider whether additional measures are appropriate in the future.
    Comment 23: NMFS received a comment in support of the alternative 
to establish bycatch caps for all fisheries that interact with shortfin 
mako sharks. Specifically, the commenter noted that NMFS should count 
the number of shortfin mako sharks caught in all fisheries, cap the 
number of shortfin mako sharks that can be caught, and implement 
accountability measures to control, track, and limit the number of

[[Page 5367]]

sh