Rule2026-10096
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Prohibit Retention of Mobulid Rays in Fisheries for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 20, 2026
Effective
June 22, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
In this final rule, NMFS is changing regulations to implement the binding International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendation 24-12 on mobulid rays of the family Mobulidae. Specifically, this action prohibits retention of mobulid rays in fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS), requires mobulid rays to be released unharmed in HMS fisheries, and implements mobulid ray handling practices for vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29371-29379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10096]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 260515-0132]
RIN 0648-BN53
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Prohibit Retention of Mobulid
Rays in Fisheries for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, NMFS is changing regulations to implement
the binding International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT) Recommendation 24-12 on mobulid rays of the family
Mobulidae. Specifically, this action prohibits retention of mobulid
rays in fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS), requires
mobulid rays to be released unharmed in HMS fisheries, and implements
mobulid ray handling practices for vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 22, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Additional information related to this final rule, including
electronic copies of the supporting documents are available from the
HMS Management Division website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species</a> or by contacting Carrie
Soltanoff (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Soltanoff at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec8f8d9e9e8589c29f8380988d82838a8aac82838d8dc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e4e6f5f5eee2a9f4e8ebf3e6e9e8e1e1c7e9e8e6e6a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>, or by phone at 301-427-8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Atlantic HMS fisheries (tunas,
billfish, swordfish, and sharks) are managed under the 2006
Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments,
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and consistent with
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). HMS
are defined at section 3(21) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see 16 U.S.C.
1802(21)) and the provisions for their management are at section
304(g)(1) (see 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)). ATCA is the implementing statute
for binding recommendations of ICCAT. HMS implementing regulations are
at 50 CFR part 635.
NMFS has prepared a comprehensive document that presents the
alternatives considered for this final rule and analyzes their
anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts. This
supporting document consolidates the requirements of a number of
Federal statutes and executive orders and includes, among other
sections, a Final Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR), and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). A brief
summary of background information and the alternatives considered is
provided below. Additional information regarding this action and HMS
management overall can be found in the supporting document, the HMS FMP
and its amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species</a>.
Statutory Authority
Under section 971d(c)(1)(A) of ATCA, NMFS must promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out binding
recommendations of ICCAT. Further, regulations promulgated shall, to
the extent practicable, be consistent with FMPs prepared and
implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (see section 971d(c)(1)(C)).
Additionally, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires measures in an FMP such
as the HMS FMP to be consistent with regulations implementing
recommendations by international organizations, as well as the national
standards (see section 303(a)(1)(C) or 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(1)(C)).
National Standard 9 requires that conservation and management measures
shall, to the extent practicable: (A) minimize bycatch (as defined at
16 U.S.C. 1802(2)); and, (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided,
minimize the mortality of such bycatch (see section 301(a)(9) or 16
U.S.C.
[[Page 29372]]
1851(a)(9)). Section 305(d) provides for the promulgation of such
regulations as may be necessary to implement an FMP such as the HMS FMP
and would help ensure that the HMS FMP is implemented consistently with
the ICCAT recommendation, as well as National Standard 9 (see section
305(d) or 16 U.S.C. 1855(d)).
Background
On August 22, 2025, NMFS published a proposed rule (90 FR 41024)
and released a draft of the supporting document, which included a Draft
EA, RIR, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The
proposed rule and supporting document contain background information
relevant to this action and are not repeated here. The comment period
for the proposed rule closed on September 22, 2025. NMFS received 19
written comments during the proposed rule public comment period, as
well as comments during a public hearing webinar and an HMS Advisory
Panel meeting. The comments received, and the responses to those
comments, are summarized in the Response to Comments section.
In this action, consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 24-12, NMFS
prohibits retention of mobulid rays of the family Mobulidae in HMS
fisheries, requires mobulid rays to be released unharmed in HMS
fisheries, and implements mobulid ray handling and release practices
for vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear. These measures are also
consistent with National Standard 9, and for giant manta rays, the 2024
Draft Recovery Plan and Draft Recovery Implementation Strategy under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-manta-ray/conservation-management">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-manta-ray/conservation-management</a>). Additionally, in
recent years, NMFS distributed recommended handling and release
procedures to HMS permit holders that were consistent with the measures
in this action. As described below, NMFS considered three alternatives
for retention of mobulid rays and three alternatives for handling and
release practices for mobulid rays. These alternatives included both no
action and the selected alternatives. The purpose of this action is to
protect mobulid rays and minimize their bycatch and bycatch mortality
to the extent practicable in HMS fisheries, consistent with ICCAT
Recommendation 24-12 and National Standard 9.
Prohibition on Retention of Mobulid Rays
In this action, NMFS prohibits retention of all mobulid rays in the
family Mobulidae in all HMS fisheries, under Alternative A3. Vessels
issued, or which should have been issued, any HMS permit, commercial or
recreational, are prohibited from retaining, transshipping, landing, or
storing any parts or whole carcasses of mobulid rays. Persons are
prohibited from selling or purchasing any mobulid ray, a whole carcass
or part thereof, that was caught by a vessel issued or required to be
issued a permit for HMS.
These measures implement Recommendation 24-12, prohibiting
retention of mobulid rays taken in association with ICCAT fisheries.
Fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species (i.e., swordfish and
billfish) are considered to be ICCAT fisheries. These measures
additionally prohibit retention of mobulid rays in fisheries for
sharks. While fisheries for sharks are not ICCAT fisheries for tunas
and tuna-like species, application of the measures for shark fisheries
ensures consistent application, facilitates effective implementation,
and provides clarity for the regulated community and for enforcement
purposes. Applying this requirement in all HMS fisheries further
implements measures in the HMS FMP consistent with the national
standards (specifically National Standard 9) and regulations
implementing recommendations by international organizations, as
required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Similarly, implementing a
prohibition on sale or purchase of mobulid rays in addition to
prohibiting their retention facilitates effective implementation and
provides clarity for the regulated community and for enforcement
purposes.
Researchers conducting research on mobulid rays need an exempted
fishing permit or related permit (e.g., scientific research permit,
display permit) consistent with the regulations at Sec. 635.32
exempting them from the mobulid ray regulations when conducting
research or collection on any HMS-permitted fishing vessel. Researchers
who interact with giant manta rays continue to need to consult with the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources for any additional authorizations
required under the ESA.
Handling and Release Practices for Mobulid Rays
In this action, NMFS requires vessels issued, or which should have
been issued, any HMS permit to release unharmed, to the extent
practicable, mobulid rays as soon as they are seen on the hook or at
the vessel, under Alternative B2 (with additional requirements for
pelagic longline vessels as described below). These measures implement
Recommendation 24-12, requiring vessels to promptly release mobulid
rays unharmed, to the extent practicable. Application of this
requirement in all HMS fisheries, rather than only ICCAT fisheries for
tunas and tuna-like species, ensures consistent application,
facilitates effective implementation, and provides clarity for the
regulated community and for enforcement purposes.
In addition, these measures align HMS fishery requirements with the
giant manta ray handling and release procedures recommended after the
ESA listing, which state that giant manta rays should be released in a
manner that will promote their survival after any fishery interaction.
Because these measures apply this requirement to all mobulid rays,
these measures also avoid any differing requirement among species of
mobulid rays that could lead to mishandling of giant manta rays due to
misidentification. The 2024 Recovery Status Review for Giant Manta Ray
describes a high rate of misidentification between giant manta rays and
other mobulid rays.
In this action, NMFS further requires vessels issued, or which
should have been issued, an HMS permit and fishing with pelagic
longline gear to disentangle and release, as safely as practicable, any
hooked or entangled mobulid rays using dehookers or line clippers or
cutters, under Alternative B3. When using a line clipper or cutter, the
gangion is required to be cut so that less than 3 feet (91.4
centimeters (cm)) of line remains attached to the hook and, to the
extent practicable, any line that is wrapped around the animal is
removed. Handling requirements also state that mobulid rays must be
left in the water, and no mobulid ray may be gaffed.
These measures implement the suggested best handling practices for
the safe release of mobulid rays in Recommendation 24-12. In addition,
these measures align HMS fisheries with aspects of the recommended
giant manta ray handling and release procedures developed following the
ESA listing. As these measures apply this requirement to all mobulid
rays, these measures also avoid any differing requirement among species
of mobulid rays that could lead to mishandling of giant manta rays due
to misidentification. Further, requiring mobulid rays to be
disentangled and either dehooked or cut off the line with a limited
amount of line remaining attached to the hook facilitates the ability
of NMFS observers and vessel captains or crew to identify and report
which species of mobulid ray was involved in the interaction. The
[[Page 29373]]
requirement to cut the gangion so that less than 3 feet (91.4 cm) of
line remains attached to the hook is consistent with handling and
release requirements for shark bycatch on pelagic longline gear (see
Sec. 635.21(c)(6)(i)).
Other Alternatives Analyzed
In addition to the measures described above, in the supporting
document for this action, NMFS analyzed two no action alternatives
(Alternatives A1 and B1) that would maintain the status quo in HMS
fisheries. NMFS did not select the no action alternatives because they
do not meet the objectives of the rule. The supporting document also
describes the impacts of one other alternative. Alternative A2 would
prohibit retention of mobulid rays in fisheries for tunas and tuna-like
species. NMFS did not select Alternative A2 because, while it would
implement Recommendation 24-12, application of this measure in some HMS
fisheries and not others (i.e., fisheries for sharks) could lead to
issues related to inconsistent application, complicate implementation,
and cause confusion or complications for the regulated community and
for enforcement purposes.
Response to Comments
NMFS received 19 written comments from individual members of the
public. All written comments can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NMFS-2025-0015">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NMFS-2025-0015</a>. NMFS also received
verbal comments from the HMS Advisory Panel and on a public hearing
webinar. Below, NMFS summarizes and responds to the comments made on
the proposed rule during the comment period.
Comment 1: NMFS received multiple comments in support of
implementing the alternatives that were preferred in the proposed rule.
Commenters supported domestic implementation of ICCAT Recommendation
24-12 and adopting regulations in alignment with National Standard 9
and ESA commitments. Commenters supported including the entire family
Mobulidae in the regulations. Commenters further supported applying the
retention prohibition in all HMS fisheries to avoid inconsistent
application, confusion, and complications with respect to enforcement.
Commenters stated that, since bycatch practices are already in place
for sharks, extending them to include rays would require minimal effort
and resources and cause minimal disturbance in HMS fisheries. NMFS
received several comments stating that mobulid rays need to be
protected as proposed in this action since populations are in decline
worldwide due to their conservative life histories and vulnerability to
threats such as targeted fishing, bycatch mortality, vessel strikes,
and the impacts of chemical and plastic pollutants. Additionally, the
aggregative behavior and surface-feeding habits increase their risk of
capture.
Response 1: In this final rule, NMFS is finalizing and implementing
the proposed preferred alternatives. Rationale for the selected
management measures can be found above in this final rule and a
description of the population status of mobulid rays can be found in
the supporting document.
Comment 2: NMFS received comments on current fishery practices and
observations. One commenter noted that the requirements under the
action would be consistent with current practices in the pelagic
longline fishery, where they see mobulid rays on occasion. One
commenter stated that manta rays do not get hooked on bottom longline
gear, but they have seen one instance of a mobulid ray found tangled in
the line. Observations were relayed about interactions in the U.S.
Caribbean and for markets for mobulid ray meat in other parts of the
Caribbean, as well as interactions around Florida, particularly in the
cobia fishery.
Response 2: NMFS appreciates these comments on current fishery
practices, which are consistent with descriptions of fishery
interactions in the 2024 ESA Recovery Status Review for giant manta ray
and in the Affected Environment chapter of the supporting document for
this action.
Comment 3: NMFS received a comment opposing implementing
regulations regarding mobulid ray retention. The commenter stated that
there is no need to allocate resources toward enforcement of such
regulations since there is currently no fishery for mobulid rays or
value in mobulid ray retention, and that regulations and enforcement
would be a burden on fishermen.
Response 3: NMFS agrees that there is currently no fishery for
mobulid rays and that mobulid rays are a bycatch and not a target
species. In support of this, NMFS notes that it does not have records
of sale of mobulid rays from HMS fisheries in Atlantic HMS dealer data.
However, the lack of a current fishery does not indicate that a fishery
for mobulid rays is not possible in the future without restrictions
against it. Furthermore, maintaining the status quo and not
implementing regulations regarding mobulid ray retention would not meet
the purpose and need for this action to implement binding ICCAT
Recommendation 24-12, which prohibits the retention of mobulid rays in
ICCAT fisheries. As described in the supporting document, there are
potential benefits to implementing binding ICCAT recommendations,
including avoiding being identified for noncompliance by the ICCAT
Compliance Committee. Compliance could also positively affect public
perception of HMS fisheries and influence decisions by consumers. Also,
as described in the supporting document, fishermen are already required
to disentangle protected species, such as turtles, and to release
sharks with a maximum of 3 feet (91.4 cm) of trailing line. In the
short term, fishermen may experience inefficiencies as they adjust to
applying the existing handling and release practices when handling and
releasing mobulid rays. However, NMFS expects that any resulting
inefficiencies would be minimal and that fishermen would become adept
in using these practices to release mobulid rays over time given they
are adept at using similar practices to release sharks and protected
species. Therefore, NMFS believes that Alternative A3 will likely
result in neutral short-term and long-term social and economic impacts.
NMFS also believes that, because there is no fishery for mobulid rays,
and because the handling and release practices are the same as what is
already required for other species, implementing this restriction would
not result in a need for additional resources for enforcement.
Comment 4: NMFS received a comment that the ban on retention of
mobulid rays should be extended to all U.S. fisheries.
Response 4: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
This rulemaking and ICCAT Recommendation 24-12 address ICCAT and other
Atlantic HMS fisheries.
Comment 5: NMFS received comments that States, territories,
Regional Fishery Management Councils, and State Fisheries Commissions
should adopt the measures proposed in this rulemaking. One commenter
was further concerned that handling practices would not be required in
the territorial waters of Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Response 5: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking,
which is focused on Federal regulations for Atlantic HMS. However, NMFS
does regularly raise changes in HMS regulations with partner
organizations (e.g., State governments, territorial governments,
Fishery Management Councils represented on the HMS Advisory Panel, and
the Shark Board of
[[Page 29374]]
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission).
Regulations implemented under this action apply to the owners and
operators of vessels issued any HMS permit--whether they are fishing in
Federal, State, or territorial waters, or outside the U.S. EEZ--as a
condition of the permit, unless the State or territory has more
restrictive regulations that apply (see 50 CFR 635.4(a)(10)).
Comment 6: NMFS received comments regarding additional protections
for giant manta ray. Some comments encouraged NMFS to implement
protective regulations for the giant manta ray under the ESA section
4(d). One comment encouraged NMFS to improve the ESA Recovery Plan for
Giant Manta Ray by developing a more comprehensive strategy that makes
use of the extensive expertise available across the country. NMFS
received further comments stating that the agency should fund and
conduct studies of the post-release mortality of mobulid rays and notes
that the HMS Biological Opinion proposes this research in the
``Conservation Recommendations'' section.
Response 6: These comments are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. For more information on giant manta rays, any future
regulations including those implemented under ESA section 4(d) by NMFS'
Office of Protected Resources, and the Recovery Plan, please refer to
the website: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-manta-ray/conservation-management">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-manta-ray/conservation-management</a>.
Comment 7: NMFS received a comment that Manta Trust's Manta and
Devil Ray Safe Handling and Release Guidelines should be adopted and
distributed to HMS fisheries.
Response 7: The handling and release requirements that NMFS is
finalizing under Alternatives B2 and B3, in addition to the previous
handling and release guidelines that NMFS has distributed in HMS
fisheries, are largely consistent with Manta Trust's recommendations as
applied to the gears authorized in HMS fisheries. NMFS will be
distributing updated handling and release procedures in conjunction
with this final rule.
Comment 8: NMFS received a comment that NMFS should remove the
mention of the dehooker from Alternative B3, since the use of a
dehooker can cause severe damage to the animal when a hook is deeply
lodged or has been ingested, and further adapt the text in Alternative
B3 in accordance with the longline section of Manta Trust's safe
handling and release guidelines. NMFS received other comments
supporting preferred Alternative B3 and stating that using dehookers,
line clippers, or line cutters to safely release hooked or entangled
mobulid rays from pelagic longline gear is beneficial to the species
and should be required.
Response 8: NMFS is finalizing the use of dehooker devices as
proposed under Alternative B3, in line with support from some
commenters for including this device in the regulations. Additionally,
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources reviewed the proposed rule for this
action. Their suggested modifications strengthen the language regarding
the requirement to disentangle mobulid rays and should ensure that the
final handling and release requirements will increase the likelihood of
giant manta rays being released in a manner that minimizes post-release
mortality. In their review, they did not suggest removing the
possibility of using a dehooking device to help release the animal.
Note that though this final rule requires the release of mobulid rays,
it does not mandate the use of dehooker. Rather, a line clipper or line
cutter can also be used. If the use of a dehooker would cause damage or
prolong the safe release of a mobulid ray, NMFS encourages the use of
the other tools. Dehookers and line clippers or cutters are both widely
accepted tools for safe release of elasmobranch bycatch (see for
example the best handling practices for mobulid rays in Annex 1 of
Recommendation 24-12 and adoption of these tools for release of sharks
under Amendment 5b to the HMS FMP), and the appropriate tool to use is
situation specific.
Comment 9: NMFS received comments that research has shown that the
mortality rate of mobulid rays in purse seine fisheries could be as
high as 80 percent, that safe handling and release guidelines should be
adopted for purse seine gear, and that communication between purse
seine vessels and spotter helicopters can be effective in avoiding
bycatch of mobulid rays. One comment further suggested that, based on
studies on purse seine vessels, NMFS should require that vessels avoid
interactions with mobulid rays when they are detected by the crew, and
that mobulids rays be released as soon as they are caught, preferably,
if feasible, before being brought on deck.
Response 9: NMFS no longer authorizes the use of purse seine gear
in Atlantic HMS fisheries. Atlantic HMS fisheries (apart from harpoon
fisheries for tuna and swordfish, which do not interact with mobulid
rays) do not use spotter helicopters or airplanes that would be able to
detect mobulid rays in advance. The handling and release regulations
for pelagic longline gear under preferred Alternative B3 require
vessels to release mobulid rays without removing them from the water.
In addition, adding these requirements to Alternative B2 would go
beyond what was adopted in ICCAT Recommendation 24-12. Therefore, NMFS
is finalizing Alternative B2 as proposed. Of note, ICCAT Recommendation
24-12 does include requirements and best practices specific to purse
seine gear, applicable to countries with purse seine vessels.
Comment 10: NMFS received comments in support of allowing exempted
fishing permits (EFPs) and related permits such as display permits
under preferred Alternative A3, as the very small and limited number of
mobulid rays collected for public display and research is sustainable
and allows accredited zoos and aquariums the invaluable opportunity to
learn and educate others about these species and their conservation
needs. One commenter expressed concern that this action would restrict
the existing HMS EFP program or the continued issuance of display
permits for aquariums.
Response 10: In this final rule, NMFS is finalizing and
implementing Alternative A3 as proposed. HMS EFPs or related permits
such as display permits will be required when conducting mobulid ray
research or collection on any HMS-permitted fishing vessel. Research or
collection trips that take place on a vessel that is not an HMS-
permitted fishing vessel will not require an HMS EFP or related permit
for mobulid rays. Researchers who interact with giant manta rays will
continue to need to consult with the NMFS Office of Protected Resources
for any additional authorizations required under the ESA. No other
changes will be made to the HMS EFP program or the issuance of HMS
display permits or related permits.
Comment 11: NMFS received a comment that, in regions like the
Caribbean and Florida, manta rays support ecotourism industries that
are valued at millions of dollars annually.
Response 11: This comment is consistent with the economic
environment described in the Affected Environment chapter of the
supporting document for this action, noting, for example, manta ray
watching in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary.
Comment 12: NMFS received a comment that a prohibition on retention
may create a corresponding increase in regulatory discards and post-
release mortality of the prohibited species, and
[[Page 29375]]
that NMFS should therefore establish a means to accurately and
precisely understand discard dynamics and patterns under the new rule,
to monitor the effects of the proposed regulations. NMFS should specify
the way that it intends to collect accurate and precise mobulid ray
bycatch information, in all fisheries that have known or suspected
catches of mobulid rays. The comment suggested measures including
improving the quality of discard data and enhancing commercial
monitoring using at-sea observer coverage and existing electronic
monitoring to produce accurate and precise estimates of all mobulid ray
bycatch in U.S. fisheries. The comment further suggested that NMFS
create a public reporting portal for catch and discard information in
recreational and commercial fisheries for real-time reporting, allowing
fisheries to avoid times and areas with high mobulid ray catches.
Response 12: ICCAT Recommendation 24-12 includes monitoring and
reporting requirements for mobulid rays. Specifically, Recommendation
24-12 requires ICCAT parties to report the number of mobulid ray
discards and releases in ICCAT fisheries through their domestic
observer programs, consistent with Recommendation 16-14, and report
those data to ICCAT. These requirements are already met in HMS
fisheries under existing regulations, reporting, and the observer
program. Given this, NMFS is not adopting additional catch monitoring
and reporting requirements in this action. Data collection in non-HMS
fisheries is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment 13: NMFS received a comment that the agency should require
full-chain traceability for all catches of mobulid rays through the
Seafood Import Monitoring Program and the Food and Drug Administration
traceability rules, in order to close a loophole for any illegal catch
of mobulid rays.
Response 13: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The purpose of this action is to implement ICCAT Recommendation 24-12,
which prohibits the retention of mobulid rays caught in association
with ICCAT fisheries, among other measures. For more information on the
Seafood Import Monitoring Program, please refer to the website: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international/international-affairs/seafood-import-monitoring-program">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international/international-affairs/seafood-import-monitoring-program</a>.
Comment 14: NMFS received comments that a new species of mobulid
ray, the Atlantic manta ray (Mobula yarae), was described by
researchers at the Georgia Aquarium and accepted by the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2025.
Response 14: The regulations under this action apply to any species
of ray in the family Mobulidae, including all currently described or
newly discovered species.
Comment 15: NMFS received comments that this action aligns with
protection of the giant manta ray under the Cartagena Convention's
Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol. NMFS also
received a comment that mobulid rays are listed as species to protect
under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and are listed under
Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Response 15: The CITES listing of mobulid rays is described in the
Affected Environment chapter of the supporting document for this
action, updated with information from the 2025 Conference of the
Parties to CITES. In the supporting document, NMFS has added the SPAW
Protocol and CMS to the description of international management of
mobulid rays in the Atlantic.
Comment 16: One commenter noted that mobulid rays are protected
under Mexican law. Commenters noted that the Atlantic pygmy devil ray
(Mobula hypostoma) and giant manta ray are listed as endangered by the
IUCN.
Response 16: These comments are outside the scope of this
rulemaking, which pertains to U.S. Atlantic HMS fisheries. However,
ICCAT Recommendation 24-12 applies to all ICCAT parties, including
Mexico. Note that NMFS does not base management actions on IUCN
designations. The IUCN uses different criteria than applicable under
the ESA for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered
or for determining whether stocks are overfished or overfishing is
occurring under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Comment 17: NMFS received a comment that, by implementing ICCAT
Recommendation 24-12, the United States shows it is committed to
meeting international conservation obligations and is holding its
fisheries to the same standards as other nations, which the comment
states is important for credibility as well as compliance, and signals
that the United States is serious about science-based conservation.
Response 17: The United States implements all relevant ICCAT
recommendations domestically, as required under ATCA. Additionally, the
United States actively participates in the compliance review process at
ICCAT.
Comment 18: NMFS received a comment that the requirements under
this action, specifically Alternative B3, should not go beyond what is
specifically required in the ICCAT recommendation.
Response 18: Best handling practices for longline gear are included
in ICCAT Recommendation 24-12, and while handling practices are not
required under that recommendation, the practices in this final rule
align with Recommendation 24-12, domestic handling and release
guidelines for giant manta ray under the ESA as well as other protected
resources, and existing handling and release requirements for sharks
caught on pelagic longline gear. Implementing handling practices under
this action is also consistent with National Standard 9.
Comment 19: NMFS received comments that, while the proposed
measures are a crucial first step in reducing mobulid ray fatalities
and restoring populations, a full, permanent ban on destructive
commercial fishing practices, such as bottom trawling and pelagic
longline fishing, in mobulid ray habitat would go further to help
recover mobulid ray populations in the United States.
Response 19: Banning commercial fishing using bottom trawl or
pelagic longline gear is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment 20: NMFS received a comment that NMFS should allocate
resources toward re-opening the recreational Atlantic shortfin mako
shark fishery, rather than developing regulations for mobulid rays.
Response 20: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
NMFS notes, however, that the recreational shortfin mako shark
retention limit is currently set at zero (87 FR 39373, July 1, 2022).
Since implementation of that regulation, there have been no changes in
the status of the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock.
Additionally, no changes to the restriction on landing shortfin mako
sharks have been made at ICCAT, with Recommendation 21-09 still in
place. To the extent that these comments are suggesting development of
U.S. proposals at ICCAT, U.S. proposals and priorities for ICCAT
generally are discussed in the context of the U.S. ICCAT Advisory
Committee meetings, which typically have at least one session per
meeting open to the public.
[[Page 29376]]
Changes From the Proposed Rule
As a result of further conversations with NMFS' Office of Protected
Resources regarding the proposed rule, observer data, and typical
mobulid behavior once hooked or entangled, NMFS has added additional
language to Sec. 635.21(c)(6) and the corresponding prohibition at
Sec. 635.71(a)(69) to clarify that the intention of the rule is to
leave less than 3 feet (91.4 cm) of line on the hook when releasing it
after disentangling the animal, and not just cut the line close to the
hook. This additional language specifically states that, as safely as
practicable, fishermen using pelagic longline gear must disentangle and
release the animal, not just release the animal. It also states that
when using line cutters or clippers to release/disentangle the animal,
to the extent practicable, the fishermen must remove line that is
wrapped around the animal in addition to cutting the line so that less
than 3 feet (91.4 cm) of line remains attached to the hook.
Classification
As described in the introduction, NMFS is issuing this final rule
pursuant to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act section 971d(c)(1)(A) and
the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d). The NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with
the HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action
because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under Executive
Order 13175 is not required, and the requirements of section (5)(b) and
(c) of Executive Order 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact
statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2) of Executive Order
13175 is not required and has not been prepared.
A FRFA was prepared for this final rule. The FRFA incorporates the
IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments
in response to the IRFA, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a
summary of the analyses updated in response to the comments and
completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES section). A summary is provided below.
Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires
agencies to state the need for, and objective of, the final action. The
need for this action is to implement binding ICCAT Recommendation 24-
12, adopted in 2024, which prohibits the retention of mobulid rays in
ICCAT fisheries and details best practices for handling and release of
mobulid rays. Current regulations for HMS fisheries do not address
retention or bycatch of mobulid rays. The purpose of this action is to
protect mobulid rays and minimize their bycatch and bycatch mortality
to the extent practicable in HMS fisheries consistent with ICCAT
Recommendation 24-12, as well as National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires a summary of 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
in the rule as a result of the comments. NMFS received 19 written
comments on the proposed rule and associated analyses during the public
comment period. Summarized public comments and NMFS' responses to them
are included above. NMFS received one comment that referred to the
economic impacts of the rule. NMFS received a comment opposing
implementing regulations regarding mobulid ray retention. The commenter
stated that there is no need to allocate resources toward enforcement
of such regulations since there is currently no fishery for mobulid
rays or value in mobulid ray retention, and that regulations and
enforcement would be a burden on fishermen.
In response to this comment, NMFS agrees that there is currently no
fishery for mobulid rays and that mobulid rays are a bycatch and not a
target species. In support of this, NMFS notes that it does not have
records of sale of mobulid rays from HMS fisheries in Atlantic HMS
dealer data. However, the lack of a current fishery does not indicate
that a fishery for mobulid rays is not possible in the future without
restrictions against it. Furthermore, maintaining the status quo and
not implementing regulations regarding mobulid ray retention would not
meet the purpose and need for this action to implement binding ICCAT
Recommendation 24-12, which prohibits the retention of mobulid rays in
ICCAT fisheries. As described in the supporting document, there are
potential benefits to implementing binding ICCAT recommendations,
including avoiding being identified for noncompliance by the ICCAT
Compliance Committee. Compliance could also positively affect public
perception of HMS fisheries and influence decisions by consumers. Also,
as described in the supporting document, fishermen are already required
to disentangle protected species, such as turtles, and to release
sharks with a maximum of 3 feet (91.4 cm) of trailing line. In the
short-term, fishermen may experience inefficiencies as they adjust to
applying the existing handling and release practices when handling and
releasing mobulid rays. However, NMFS expects that any resulting
inefficiencies would be minimal and that fishermen would become adept
in using these practices to release mobulid rays over time given they
are adept at using similar practices to release sharks and protected
species. Therefore, NMFS believes that Alternative A3 will likely
result in neutral short-term and long-term social and economic impacts.
NMFS also believes that, because there is no fishery for mobulid rays
and because the handling and release practices are the same as what is
already required for other species, implementing this restriction would
not result in a need for additional resources for enforcement.
Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires the agency to respond to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed
statement of any change made in the rule as a result of such comments.
NMFS did not receive any comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the SBA in response to the proposed rule.
Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to provide
descriptions of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule would apply. The SBA has established size
criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including
fish harvesters. Provision is made under SBA's regulations for an
agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after
consultation with Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see
13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size
standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size
Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of
conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the
agency's
[[Page 29377]]
obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish
such size standards in the Federal Register, which NMFS did on December
29, 2015 (80 FR 81194). In that final rule, effective on July 1, 2016,
NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in
annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing
industry (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS completed a review of the
small business size standard on November 24, 2025 (90 FR 52917), that
resulted in maintaining the existing size standard. NMFS considers all
HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual
receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. SBA has
established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the
United States, including the scenic and sightseeing transportation
(water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/
party boat entities. SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity
as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $14 million.
This final rule would apply to the permit holders of 150 Swordfish
Directed, 56 Swordfish Incidental, 73 Swordfish Handgear, 173 Shark
Directed, 209 Shark Incidental, and 205 Atlantic Tunas Longline
category limited access permits. The final rule would also apply to the
permit holders of 109 Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permits, 616
Swordfish General Commercial permits (with 373 shark endorsements), 211
Smoothhound Shark permits, 2,420 Atlantic Tunas General category
permits (with 1,258 shark endorsements), 37 Atlantic Tunas Harpoon
category permits, and 4,409 HMS Charter/Headboat permits (with 3,208
shark endorsements and 2,212 commercial sale endorsements). This final
rule would also affect HMS Angling permit holders, but those permit
holders are considered individuals and not small entities under RFA.
NMFS considers all HMS permit holders, both commercial and for-hire, to
be small entities because they have average annual receipts of less
than their respective sector's standard of $11 million and $14 million.
NMFS has determined that the final rule would not likely affect any
small governmental jurisdictions. More information regarding the
description of the fisheries affected, and the categories and number of
permit holders can be found in the HMS SAFE Report.
Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires agencies to describe any new
reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements. The
action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting,
or record-keeping requirements.
Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires agencies to describe the
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable
statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal
reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why
each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered
by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in
this final rulemaking and provides rationales for identifying the
preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives. The FRFA
assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to
show the relative impact of the final action on vessels.
Under Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, the HMS
regulations at 50 CFR part 635 would continue not to address retention
of mobulid rays. In HMS fisheries, mobulid rays are bycatch and are not
targeted or retained. NMFS examined Atlantic HMS dealer data and did
not find any recorded sales of mobulid rays. This would likely indicate
neutral economic impacts on small entities participating in HMS
fisheries. However, there are potential costs to not implementing
binding ICCAT recommendations, including potentially being identified
for noncompliance by the ICCAT Compliance Committee and thereby
influencing decisions by consumers due to negative public perception,
which could result in minor adverse economic impacts. By contrast in
the future, if small entities permitted in HMS fisheries decide to
retain and sell mobulid rays under Alternative A1, that decision could
result in revenue that has minor beneficial economic impacts. The
impact is likely to be minor since there is a very limited market in
the United States. The same potential costs to noncompliance with
binding ICCAT recommendations could exist. On balance, the net benefit
of Alternative A1 would likely be neutral since the limited minor
beneficial impacts from being able to sell mobulid rays in the future
would likely be offset by negative impacts from noncompliance with the
ICCAT recommendation.
Under Alternative A2, NMFS would prohibit retention of mobulid rays
in fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species (i.e., swordfish and
billfish), which are considered to be ICCAT fisheries. Retention of
mobulid rays in fisheries for sharks would not be addressed under this
alternative. In HMS fisheries, mobulid rays are bycatch and are not
targeted or retained. NMFS examined Atlantic HMS dealer data and did
not find any recorded sales of mobulid rays. Therefore, Alternative A2
would likely result in neutral economic impacts on small entities
participating in HMS fisheries. However, if the small entities
permitted to fish for sharks with bottom longline or gillnet decide to
retain and sell mobulid rays in the future under Alternative A2, that
revenue could result in long-term minor beneficial social and economic
impacts, but to a lesser degree than potential revenue in all HMS
fisheries under Alternative A1. The impact is likely to be minor since
there is a very limited market in the United States.
Under preferred Alternative A3, NMFS would prohibit retention of
mobulid rays in all HMS fisheries. In HMS fisheries, mobulid rays are
bycatch and are not targeted or retained. NMFS examined Atlantic HMS
dealer data and did not find any recorded sales of mobulid rays.
Therefore, Alternative A3 would likely result in neutral economic
impacts on small entities participating in HMS fisheries. Compared to
Alternative A2, this alternative would simplify the regulations by
prohibiting mobulid rays in all HMS fisheries and would thus make
communicating this change easier and reduce the time and effort needed
by fishery participants to understand the retention prohibition,
without increasing any costs to fishery participants. In addition,
there are potential benefits to implementing binding ICCAT
recommendations, including avoiding being identified for noncompliance
by the ICCAT Compliance Committee. Compliance could also positively
affect public perception of HMS fisheries and influence decisions by
consumers.
Under Alternative B1, the No Action alternative, the HMS
regulations at 50 CFR part 635 would continue to not address handling
practices or require release of mobulid rays. Current recommended giant
manta ray handling and release procedures under the ESA would remain in
place. Alternative B1 would not require any changes to current mobulid
rays handling and release practices and, therefore, would likely result
in neutral economic impacts on small entities participating in HMS
fisheries. However, there are potential costs to not implementing
binding ICCAT recommendations related to required release, including
potentially being identified for noncompliance by the ICCAT
[[Page 29378]]
Compliance Committee and thereby influencing decisions by consumers due
to negative public perception, which could result in minor adverse
economic impacts.
Under preferred Alternative B2, vessels issued any HMS permit would
be required to release unharmed, to the extent practicable, mobulid
rays as soon as they are seen on the hook or at the vessel (with
additional requirements for pelagic longline vessels as described under
Alternative B3). In HMS fisheries, mobulid rays are bycatch and are not
targeted or retained. NMFS does not have records of sales of mobulid
rays from HMS fisheries. Therefore, Alternative B2 would likely result
in neutral economic impacts on small entities participating in HMS
fisheries.
Under preferred Alternative B3, NMFS would implement handling
practices for mobulid rays caught on pelagic longline gear, including
requirements to disentangle any mobulid rays, to limit trailing line to
3 feet (91.4 cm), to leave mobulid rays in the water, to use a
dehooking device or line clipper or cutter, and to not gaff mobulid
rays. Currently, pelagic longline fishermen are required to use a
dehooking device or line clipper or cutter if a protected species
(e.g., sea turtle or marine mammal) is caught, as well as for sharks
that will not be retained, but they are not currently required to use a
dehooker or line clipper or cutter to release all mobulid rays. While
this fishery interacts with mobulid rays infrequently, it is common
practice in the pelagic longline fishery to release mobulid rays by
cutting the gangion. However, they usually do not work to disentangle
the animal, nor do they cut the gangions so only 3 feet (91.4 cm)
remain. They are, nevertheless, already required to carry onboard
dehookers and line clippers or cutters and to use these devices to
safely release and disentangle sea turtles, and to leave only 3 feet
(91.4 cm) of trailing line when cutting off a shark that will not be
retained. Therefore, Alternative B3 would likely result in short-term
minor adverse economic impacts to small entities as fishermen adjust to
applying these existing handling and release practices when handling
and releasing mobulid rays. Although this adjustment may initially be
an issue, NMFS expects that any resulting inefficiencies would be
minimal and that fishermen would become adept in using these practices
to release mobulid rays over time given they are adept at using similar
practices to release sharks and protected species. Thus, Alternative B3
would be expected to have neutral long-term economic impacts.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) states that, for each rule or group of
related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, 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'' (see 5 U.S.C. 601). 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, NMFS
prepared a web page that also serves as small entity compliance guide.
Copies of this final rule and compliance guide are available on the HMS
Management Division website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species</a>).
This final rule contains no information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics,
Treaties.
Dated: May 15, 2026.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part
635 as follows:
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 635.2, add the definition of ``mobulid ray'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 635.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Mobulid ray means any species of ray in the family Mobulidae.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 635.21, add paragraphs (a)(4) and (c)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.21 Gear operation and deployment restrictions.
(a) * * *
(4) Any mobulid ray caught by a vessel that has been issued or
should have been issued an HMS permit must be released unharmed, to the
extent practicable, as soon as it is seen on the hook or at the vessel,
except that a vessel with pelagic longline on board must undertake the
additional bycatch mitigation measures described in paragraph (c)(6) of
this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) The owner or operator of a vessel permitted or required to be
permitted under this part and that has pelagic longline gear on board
must, as safely as practicable, disentangle and release any hooked or
entangled mobulid ray using dehookers or line clippers or cutters. If
using a line clipper or cutter to release the mobulid ray, to the
extent practicable, the gangion must be cut so that less than 3 feet
(91.4 cm) of line remains attached to the hook and any line that is
wrapped around the animal is removed. Mobulid rays must be released
without removing the ray from the water. No mobulid ray may be gaffed.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 635.22, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 635.22 Recreational retention limits.
* * * * *
(g) Mobulid rays. No mobulid ray, a whole carcass or part thereof,
may be retained, landed, or stored by a vessel issued or required to be
issued a permit for HMS under Sec. 635.4.
0
5. In Sec. 635.24, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 635.24 Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and
BAYS tunas.
* * * * *
(d) Mobulid rays. No mobulid ray, a whole carcass or part thereof,
may be retained, transshipped, landed, or stored by a vessel issued or
required to be issued a permit for HMS under Sec. 635.4.
0
6. In Sec. 635.31, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 635.31 Restrictions on sale and purchase.
* * * * *
(e) Mobulid rays. Persons may not sell or purchase any mobulid ray,
a whole carcass or part thereof, that was caught by a vessel issued or
required to be issued a permit for HMS under Sec. 635.4.
0
7. In Sec. 635.71, add paragraphs (a)(68) and (69) to read as follows:
Sec. 635.71 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(68) Retain, transship, land, store, sell, or purchase any mobulid
ray, a whole carcass or part thereof, as specified in Sec.
635.21(a)(5), Sec. 635.22(g), Sec. 635.24(d), and Sec. 635.31(e).
(69) Fail to release a mobulid ray when seen on the hook or at the
vessel
[[Page 29379]]
as specified in Sec. 635.21(a)(4) or fail to comply with mobulid
release protocols as specified in Sec. 635.21(c)(6).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-10096 Filed 5-19-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 20, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.