Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Atlantic tunas and swordfish are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tuna Conventions Act (ATCA), which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) to promulgate regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Federal Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. On May 28, 1999, NMFS published in the
On March 16, 2012, NMFS published a proposed rule (77 CFR 6455) in the
The specific objectives for this action are to:
• Increase participation in the HMS Federal fishery management program in the U.S. Caribbean Region;
• Expand regional HMS permit availability and increase permitting program awareness, participation, and compliance in the U.S. Caribbean Region;
• Improve regional HMS catch and fishing effort data;
• Examine and implement regionally tailored HMS management strategies, as appropriate;
• Provide targeted training and outreach to HMS fishery participants; and
• Improve NMFS' capability to monitor and sustainably manage U.S. Caribbean HMS fisheries.
NMFS will issue the new CCSB permit from its Southeast Regional Permit Office pursuant to this final rule and other applicable provisions of 50 CFR part 635. Application procedures will be similar to those used for other fishing permits issued by the Southeast Regional Permit Office.
A summary of the history and impacts of this action is provided in the proposed rule (77 CFR 6455, March 16, 2012) and environmental assessment, and those details are not repeated here. A more complete summary of Atlantic HMS management can be found in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at
This final rule creates the open access HMS CCSB permit, which allows holders to fish for and sell BAYS tunas, swordfish, and sharks in the U.S. Caribbean Region. The CCSB permit authorizes the possession and use of rod and reel, handline, harpoon, bandit gear, green-stick gear, and buoy gear. The vessels eligible for a CCSB permit are those 45 feet or less in length overall (LOA). The CCSB permit is only valid for fishing and sales in the U.S. Caribbean Region, and may not be held in combination with any other HMS vessel permit. CCSB permit holders are required to physically possess their permit, or a copy of their permit, at all times during the harvest, retention, landing and sale of HMS.
Landings data from the CCSB permit will be collected through cooperation with NMFS and existing territorial government fisheries data collection programs, as specified by those programs. The individual territorial governments will be responsible for supplying these data to the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and meeting requirements determined to be appropriate by NMFS.
The CCSB permit is a commercial-only permit and, as such, does not authorize the retention of billfish. Rod and reel, handline, harpoon, bandit, green-stick, and buoy gears are authorized for the harvest of BAYS tunas; rod and reel, handline, harpoon, bandit, and buoy gears are authorized for the harvest of swordfish; and rod and reel, handline, and bandit gears are authorized for the harvest of sharks.
Initial retention limits under the CCSB permit are set at 10 BAYS per vessel per trip, 2 swordfish per vessel per trip, and 0 sharks per vessel per trip. Trip limits may be adjusted in the future through the framework procedures codified at § 635.34(b). For BAYS and swordfish, the current size limits and landing restrictions at §§ 635.20 and 635.30, respectively, apply. For sharks, there are no size limits, as there is no current Federal commercial shark size limit; however, current landing restrictions at § 635.30, such as “fins attached” requirements, apply. Size limits and landing restrictions would be considered as appropriate under future rulemaking if NMFS were to increase the retention limit above zero fish.
NMFS considered four alternatives regarding HMS fisheries management in the Caribbean Region. The alternatives considered included various combinations of measures ranging from maintaining the status quo to alternative permit specifications on retention limits, vessel sizes, and additional restrictions. A description of the alternatives was provided in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
If shark trip limits are set above zero in a future rulemaking, applicants for a CCSB permit will be required to complete a NMFS Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop and submit a copy of a valid workshop certificate with their permit application. Additionally, NMFS may require CCSB permit holders to possess a copy of this certificate at every point of shark sale. NMFS would conduct rulemaking to implement these requirements through the framework procedures at § 635.34(b) at the time that the shark trip limits are adjusted.
During the proposed rule stage, NMFS received three written comments from the public. NMFS also received comments from the Atlantic HMS Advisory Panel and heard additional comments from constituents who attended the six public hearings held in Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas. A summary of the comments received on the proposed rule during the public comment period is provided below with NMFS' response. All written comments submitted during the comment period can be found at
The permit name “HMS Caribbean Small Boat Commercial permit” was used in the proposed rule and has been changed to “HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit” in this final rule. Minor changes in the wording to the paragraphs found at § 635.4(d)(3), (e)(1), (e)(2), (o)(3) and (o)(5) and § 635.21(e)(3)(i) were made to provide further clarification. A change to add a new paragraph at § 635.71(a)(56) was made to provide further clarification. A minor change to delete the phrase “After December 31, 2007,” was made to the paragraph found at § 635.27(c)(l)(i)(A) because the date is no longer needed.
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.
NMFS prepared an environmental assessment for this final rule that discusses the impact on the environment that would result from this rule. In this final action, NMFS is addressing the need to increase the participation of small-scale Caribbean fishing vessels within the HMS permitting and reporting regime in order to better collect catch and effort data and provide for sustainably managed fisheries. A copy of the environmental assessment is available from NMFS (see
Pursuant to the procedures established to implement section 6 of E.O. 12866, OMB has determined that this final rule is not significant.
The agency has consulted, to the extent practicable, with appropriate state and local officials to address the principles, criteria, and requirements of Executive Order 13132.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared. The final regulatory flexibility analysis incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action.
The final regulatory flexibility analysis analyzed the anticipated economic impacts of the final action and any significant economic impacts on small entities. A summary of the final regulatory flexibility analysis is below. The initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis and the analysis of social and economic impacts are available from NMFS (see
The purpose of this final rulemaking, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, is to enact HMS management measures that better correspond with the traditional operation of the small boat fishing fleet in the U.S. Caribbean Region and to provide NMFS with an improved capability to monitor and sustainably manage those fisheries.
Section 604(a)(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to summarize significant issues raised by the public in response to the IRFA, a summary of the agency's assessment of such issues, and a statement of any changes made as a result of the comments. We received several comments on the proposed rule and IRFA. Those comments and NMFS' responses to them are mentioned above in the preamble for this rule. In particular, comments 1, 2, 12, and 13 address the rule's economic impacts. There are no substantive changes from the proposed rule as a result of these economic comments.
Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires Federal agencies estimate the number of small entities to which the rule will apply. The current Caribbean HMS small-scale fishery is partially comprised of fishermen who currently hold an Atlantic General category or a HMS Charter/headboat category permit and the related industries, including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers, all of which we consider to be small entities according to the size standards set by the Small Business Administration. There may also be a few new entrants to the Caribbean small-scale HMS fishery; however, the number of new entrants is expected to be low due to the isolated area, small vessels in the region, limited fishing area, and limited profit margins. The final rule applies to small-scale commercial HMS vessels that fish in the Caribbean Region. In 2010, there were 92 vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas General category in Puerto Rico and 10 in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 2010, there were 23 vessels permitted in the Charter/Headboat category in Puerto Rico and 21 in the U.S. Virgin Islands. We anticipate that the universe of fishermen who might purchase and fish under a Caribbean permit will be approximately 100 individuals in the U.S. Caribbean Region, with some potential shift of fishermen currently permitted in the Angling and Charter/Headboat categories.
Under section 604 (a)(4) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe any new reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements in the final rule. This rule does not contain any new reporting requirements, but requires fishermen to apply for a Caribbean permit in a manner similar to the way HMS permit holders apply for their current HMS permits, if they currently hold one.
This final rule does not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ACTA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. We do not believe that the new regulations duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, federal or otherwise.
Under section 604(a)(5) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe any alternatives to the rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant economic impacts. Economic impacts are discussed below and in the Environmental Assessment for the action. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c) (1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in developing significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) using performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exempting from coverage of the rule for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this final rule, consistent with legal obligations, we cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. In addition, none of the alternatives considered would result in additional reporting requirements (category two above). The relative absence of a dealer structure in the U.S. Caribbean region
We considered and analyzed four alternatives in this Final Environmental Assessment. These alternatives ranged from maintaining the status quo to creating a CCSB permit valid only in the U.S. Caribbean Region, which could allow fishing for and sales of BAYS tunas, swordfish, and Atlantic sharks (excluding sandbar) under specific limitations. Three alternatives were analyzed that would have allowed us to modify retention limits using the framework adjustment procedures codified at § 635.34(b). We assessed the impacts of the alternatives, which are composed of seven key topics, including: permitting/workshop certification; authorized species; retention limit ranges; reporting; authorized gears; vessel size restrictions; and, regions. Instead of analyzing a range of alternatives under individual topics, the final regulatory flexibility analysis considers a number of alternative suites that pull from a range of alternatives under all the topics.
Alternative 1 would, among other things, maintain current Atlantic HMS vessel and dealer permits structure, current upgrading restrictions, current authorized species and gear structure, current retention limits, and, current observer and reporting requirements. Alternative 2 would create a Caribbean permit allowing fishing for and sales of BAYS tunas and Atlantic swordfish under specific limitations. Alternative 3 would create a Caribbean permit allowing fishing for and sales of BAYS tunas, Atlantic swordfish, and Atlantic sharks, under specific limitations. Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 in that it could also allow for the retention of Atlantic sharks. Alternative 4 would create a Caribbean permit allowing fishing for and sales of BAYS tunas, Atlantic swordfish, and Atlantic sharks, under specific limitations. Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 in that it could allow for higher retention limits of BAYS tunas, Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic sharks, and would not limit vessel size. Under alternatives 2-4, modifications to the initial retention limits could be made using the adjustment procedures codified at § 635.34(b).
Under Alternative 1, we do not anticipate any substantive change in economic impacts, as the small-scale fishermen in the Caribbean Region are already operating under the current regulations. However, this alternative may contribute to a loss of potential income by small-scale fishermen in the Caribbean Region, because these fishermen are limited in their ability to gain access to federal commercial limited access HMS fisheries due to the high costs of obtaining permits considering the low volume of their catch and resulting profit. The relative absence of a dealer structure may cause them to sell to non-dealers or to become individual dealers themselves, which may constitute additional financial burden with regard to the cost of a dealer permit. Therefore, for all the reasons mentioned above, we do not prefer this alternative.
Alternative 2 would allow small-scale fishermen in the Caribbean Region to fish for, retain, and sell BAYS tunas and swordfish. This alternative would codify initial retention limits of 10 BAYS tunas/trip and 2 swordfish/trip, but also provides for a defined range within which the retention limits can be adjusted according to specific management criteria (0 to 24 for BAYS and 0 to 6 for swordfish). Alternative 2 would limit the length of vessels eligible for the Caribbean permit to 45 ft. or less. Based on preliminary scoping for this rulemaking, a trip in which 10 BAYS and/or 2 swordfish are captured is considered a very successful trip for the small-scale fishermen; thus, these were selected as initial retention limits for BAYS tuna and swordfish under this alternative. Atlantic yellowfin tuna and “tunas” harvested in the handline fishery may sell for between $1.75/lb and $7.00/lb, depending on quality and local demand. Using Commission conversions for yellowfin tuna, a fish meeting the current U.S. minimum size (27 inches CFL) weighs approximately 14 lb. Therefore, if each fisherman conducted two BAYS tunas trips per month (24 trips/yr.), and landed 10 yellowfin tuna on each trip (240 yellowfin tuna/yr.), then the annual revenue per vessel associated with this activity would range from $5,880.00 (240 yellowfin tuna × 14 lb × $1.75/lb)—$23,520.00 (240 yellowfin tuna × 14 lb × $7.00/lb). Swordfish is currently selling for approximately $4.00 to $6.00 per pound in the Caribbean Region (Lynn Rios, pers. comm.). Using Commission conversions for swordfish, a fish meeting the current U.S. minimum size (47 inches lower jaw fork length) weighs approximately 44 lb. Therefore, if each fisherman conducted two swordfish trips per month (24 trips/yr.), and landed 2 swordfish on each trip (24 swordfish/yr.), then the annual revenue per vessel associated with this activity would range from $4,224.00 (24 swordfish × 44 lb × $4.00/lb)—$6,336.00 (24 swordfish × 44 lb × $6.00/lb). Because we would have authority to adjust the BAYS tunas limits from 0 to 24 fish under Alternative 2, the annual ex-vessel revenue estimates vary, either higher or lower, according to these calculations if the BAYS and swordfish limits were to change. This alternative could result in positive economic impacts for Caribbean small-scale fishermen. The ability to land and sell swordfish under Alternative 2 could increase the profitability of the localized fishery. During the comment period on the proposed rule, commenters requested a higher initial retention limit for BAYS tunas, as sometimes fishermen catch more than 10 BAYS tunas on a trip, as well as include a retention limit for commercial shark fisheries that is above zero per trip. While this alternative provides the Agency the ability to adjust the retention limits as needed and provide positive social and economic benefits, it would provide potential access to the federal commercial shark fishery when stocks rebuild. Therefore, we do not prefer this alternative.
Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, allows Caribbean small-scale fishermen to retain and sell from 0 to 24 BAYS tunas/trip and from 0 to 6 swordfish/trip. This alternative also provides Caribbean small-scale fishermen the capacity to participate in the federal commercial fishery for sharks by establishing a retention limit range of 0 to 3 for non-sandbar large coastal sharks and 0 to 16 for small coastal sharks and pelagic sharks. To be conservative, we are considering setting the initial shark retention limit at 0, with the ability to modify the retention limits once the shark complexes have recovered and the Agency has more data on regional participants, catches, and discards in the Caribbean permit fishery.
With regard to BAYS tunas and swordfish, Alternative 3 would have the same positive economic impacts as Alternative 2 discussed above (BAYS:
Alternative 4 would allow Caribbean small-scale fishermen to retain and sell from between 0 to an unlimited number of BAYS tunas, 0 to an unlimited number of swordfish, 0 to 33 sharks non-sandbar large coastal sharks, and from 0 to an unlimited number of small coastal sharks and pelagic sharks. Under Alternative 4, we would set initial retention limits of 24 BAYS tunas per trip, 6 swordfish per trip, and 1 non-sandbar large coastal shark and 2 small coastal sharks or pelagic sharks combined, with the ability to modify the retention limits once the shark complexes have recovered and the Agency has more data on regional participants, catches, and discards in the Caribbean permit fishery. Additionally, this alternative would not limit the vessel size of participants in the Caribbean permit fishery. If each fisherman conducted two BAYS tunas trips per month (24 trips/yr.), and landed 24 yellowfin tuna on each trip (576 yellowfin tuna/yr.), then the annual revenue per vessel associated with this activity would range from $14,112.00 (576 yellowfin tuna × 14 lb (average weight of a landed yellowfin tuna) × $1.75/lb)—$56,448.00 (576 yellowfin tuna × 14 lb × $7.00/lb). If each fisherman conducted two swordfish trips per month (24 trips/yr.), and landed 6 swordfish on each trip (144 swordfish/yr.), then the annual revenue per vessel associated with this activity would range from $25,344.00 (144 swordfish × 44 lb x $4.00/lb)—$38,016.00 (144 swordfish × 44 lb × $6.00/lb). If each fisherman conducted two shark trips per month (24 trips/yr.), and landed 1 non-sandbar large coastal shark and 2 small coastal sharks on each trip (24 large coastal sharks/yr. & 48 small coastal sharks/yr.), then the annual revenue per vessel associated with this activity would range from $4,296.00 (24 large coastal sharks × 95 lb × $1.57/lb + 48 small coastal sharks × 10 lb × $1.57/lb)—$11,040.00 (24 large coastal sharks × 95 lb × $4.00/lb + 48 small coastal sharks × 10 lb × $4.00/lb). These estimates of annual revenues could be higher if more pelagic sharks were landed due to their larger average size. Because we would have framework authority to adjust the trip limits for BAYS, swordfish, and sharks within the range analyzed under Alternative 4, this alternative could potentially have the largest positive economic impacts when compared with Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 discussed above. However, this alternative could also result in local overcapitalization in the fishery, lead to depressed market prices, and other potentially adverse economic impacts, a concern expressed by small-scale HMS fishermen in the comment period of the proposed rule. Based on public comment and reasons described above, we do not prefer this alternative.
During the public comment period of the proposed rule, one commenter requested to know the economic costs and reporting burden associated with having to buy the new Caribbean permit. The social and economic impacts expected from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 as a result of fishery participants in the U.S. Caribbean having to purchase the new permit are the same. For instance, if individuals needed to obtain the Caribbean permit, it will cost them a total of $25 on an annual basis. Because fishery participants in the Caribbean region are already reporting to the same existing territorial data collection programs required under the new Caribbean permit, we do not expect any additional reporting burden under any of the alternatives analyzed.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0205). Public reporting burden for the HMS CCSB permit is anticipated to result in an estimated 100 new responses for fishermen who may wish to apply for the new permit and an estimated average of 20 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule and compliance guide are available upon request from NMFS or on the Web page (see
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 635 are to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801
(v) * * *
16 U.S.C. 971
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Persons aboard a vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas, HMS Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat, or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit may fish for, take, retain, or possess Atlantic tunas, but only in compliance with the quotas, catch limits, size classes, and gear applicable to the permit or permit category of the vessel from which he or she is fishing. Persons may sell Atlantic tunas only if the harvesting vessel has a valid permit in the General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse Seine, or Trap category of the Atlantic Tunas permit, a valid HMS Charter/Headboat, or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit.
(3) A vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas permit in any category for a fishing year shall not be issued an HMS Angling permit, HMS Charter/Headboat permit, or an Atlantic Tunas permit in any other category for that same fishing year, regardless of a change in the vessel's ownership. A vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas permit may be issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit, subject to restrictions set forth at § 635.4(o), within that same fishing year; however, a vessel may not hold any other HMS fishing permit simultaneously with the HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit.
(e) * * *
(1) The owner of each vessel used to fish for or take Atlantic sharks or on which Atlantic sharks are retained, possessed with an intention to sell, or sold must obtain, in addition to any other required permits, at least one of the Federal Atlantic commercial shark permits described below or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit. A Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit or HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit is not required if the vessel is recreationally fishing and retains no more sharks than the recreational retention limit specified in § 635.22(c), is operating pursuant to the conditions of a shark display or EFP issued pursuant to § 635.32, or fishes exclusively within State waters. It is a rebuttable presumption that the owner or operator of a vessel without a permit issued pursuant to this part, on which sharks are possessed in excess of the recreational retention limits, intends to sell the sharks.
(2) The owner of vessels that fish for, take, retain, or possess the Atlantic oceanic sharks listed in sections A, B, or C of Table 1 of Appendix A with an intention to sell must obtain a Federal Atlantic commercial shark directed or incidental limited access permit or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
(f) * * *
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section, the owner of each vessel used to fish for or take Atlantic swordfish or on which Atlantic swordfish are retained or possessed with an intention to sell or from which Atlantic swordfish are sold must obtain, in addition to any other required permits, only one of three types of commercial limited access swordfish permits: Swordfish directed limited access permit, swordfish incidental limited access permit, or swordfish handgear limited access permit. It is a rebuttable presumption that the owner or operator of a vessel on which swordfish are possessed in excess of the recreational retention limits intends to sell the swordfish.
(2) The only valid commercial Federal vessel permits for swordfish are those that have been issued under the limited access program consistent with the provisions under paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section, or those issued under paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section.
(g) * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Atlantic Tunas, HMS Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat, Incidental HMS squid trawl, and HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat vessel permits.
(m) * * *
(2) To be eligible for an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit, vessel owners must provide documentation that the vessel is less than or equal to 13.7 m (45 ft) in length overall.
(3) A vessel issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit may not be issued any other HMS fishing permit, except those issued under § 635.32, as long as the HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit is valid.
(4) The owner of a vessel issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit may fish for, take, retain, or possess only BAYS tunas, Atlantic swordfish, and Atlantic sharks, subject to the trip limits specified at § 635.24 and may possess unauthorized gears onboard as stated at § 635.21(b).
(5) HMS landed under an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit may be sold by the owner or operator to individuals who do not possess a valid HMS dealer permit otherwise required under § 635.4(g). HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit holders may not sell HMS harvested or landed by another vessel or purchase, barter, or trade for HMS harvested by other vessels with the intent to sell.
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) No person may possess a shark in the EEZ taken from its management unit without a permit issued under § 635.4. No person issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit under § 635.4 may possess a shark taken by any gear other than rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, longline, or gillnet. No person issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit may possess a shark taken from the U.S. Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2, by any gear other than with rod and reel, handline or bandit gear. No person issued an HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/headboat permit under § 635.4 may possess a shark if the shark was taken from its management unit by any gear other than rod and reel or handline, except that persons on a vessel issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit may possess sharks taken with rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, longline, or gillnet if the vessel is not engaged in a for-hire fishing trip.
(4) * * *
(iii) A person aboard a vessel issued or required to be issued a valid directed handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit may not fish for swordfish with any gear other than handgear. A swordfish will be deemed to have been harvested by longline when the fish is on board or offloaded from a vessel using or having on board longline gear. Only vessels that have been issued, or that are required to have been issued, a valid dir