50394 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Carolyn Flowers, warranted for 24 of the species and 3 of the timing of when a species may be in Acting Administrator. the subpopulations and announced the danger of extinction, either presently [FR Doc. 2016–17889 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] initiation of status reviews for each of (endangered) or in the foreseeable future BILLING CODE C the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78 (threatened). FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, to determine whether any species is DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, endangered or threatened due to any February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, one or a combination of the following February 24, 2014). On July 14, 2015, National Oceanic and Atmospheric five threat factors: The present or we published a proposed rule to list the Administration threatened destruction, modification, or sawback angelshark (Squatina curtailment of its habitat or range; aculeata), smoothback angelshark 50 CFR Part 224 overutilization for commercial, (Squatina oculata), and the common [Docket No. 150506424–6642–02] angelshark (Squatina squatina) as recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the RIN 0648–XD940 endangered species (80 FR 40969). We requested public comment on inadequacy of existing regulatory Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information in the draft status review mechanisms; or other natural or and Plants; Listing Three Angelshark and proposed rule, and the comment manmade factors affecting its continued Species as Endangered Under the period was open through September 14, existence. We are also required to make Endangered Species Act 2015. This final rule provides a listing determinations based solely on discussion of the information we the best scientific and commercial data AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries received during the public comment available, after conducting a review of Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and period and our final determination on the species’ status and after taking into Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the petition to list the sawback account efforts being made by any State Commerce. angelshark, smoothback angelshark, and or foreign nation to protect the species. ACTION: Final rule. common angelshark under the ESA. The In making a listing determination, we status of the findings and relevant first determine whether a petitioned SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue a final rule Federal Register notices for the other 21 to list three foreign marine angelshark species meets the ESA definition of a species and 3 subpopulations can be ‘‘species.’’ Next, using the best available species under the Endangered Species found on our Web site at http:// Act (ESA). We considered comments information gathered during the status www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ review for the species, we complete a submitted on the proposed listing rule petition81.htm. and have determined that the sawback status and extinction risk assessment. In angelshark (Squatina aculeata), Listing Species Under the Endangered assessing extinction risk for these three smoothback angelshark (Squatina Species Act angelshark species, we considered the demographic viability factors developed oculata), and common angelshark We are responsible for determining (Squatina squatina) warrant listing as by McElhany et al. (2000). The approach whether species are threatened or of considering demographic risk factors endangered species. We will not endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. designate critical habitat for any of these to help frame the consideration of 1531 et seq.). To make this extinction risk has been used in many species because the geographical areas determination, we first consider occupied by these species are entirely of our status reviews, including for whether a group of organisms Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound not identified any unoccupied areas then whether the status of the species rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped within U.S. jurisdiction that are qualifies it for listing as either hammerhead sharks, and black abalone currently essential to the conservation threatened or endangered. Section 3 of (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ of any of these species. the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ to include species/ for links to these reviews). In ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or DATES: This final rule is effective August this approach, the collective condition plants, and any distinct population 31, 2016. of individual populations is considered segment of any species of vertebrate fish ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species at the species level according to four or wildlife which interbreeds when Division, NMFS Office of Protected viable population descriptors: Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West mature.’’ Section 3 of the ESA defines an Abundance, growth rate/productivity, Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. endangered species as ‘‘any species spatial structure/connectivity, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: which is in danger of extinction diversity. These viable population Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of throughout all or a significant portion of descriptors reflect concepts that are Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427– its range’’ and a threatened species as well-founded in conservation biology 8403. one ‘‘which is likely to become an and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a risk (NMFS 2015). Background significant portion of its range.’’ We We then assess efforts being made to On July 15, 2013, we received a interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be protect the species to determine if these petition from WildEarth Guardians to one that is presently in danger of conservation efforts are adequate to list 81 marine species or subpopulations extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on mitigate the existing threats. Section as threatened or endangered under the the other hand, is not presently in 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the ESA. This petition included species danger of extinction, but is likely to Secretary, when making a listing from many different taxonomic groups, become so in the foreseeable future (that determination for a species, to take into and we prepared our 90-day findings in is, at a later time). In other words, the consideration those efforts, if any, being batches by taxonomic group. We found primary statutory difference between a made by any State or foreign nation to that the petitioned actions may be threatened and endangered species is protect the species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 50395

Summary of Comments Comment 3: One commenter Guadalupe fur seal listing rule, remarked on our consideration of the recommending an ESA ‘‘endangered’’ In response to our request for International Union for Conservation of status for the species. However, based comments on the proposed rule, we Nature (IUCN) Red List species on the available information and our received information and/or comments assessments. Using an example from evaluation of the data in light of the from three parties. Two of the over 30 years ago, the commenter standards on extinction risk, threats to commenters presented general asserted, noting the IUCN’s the species, and ESA definitions, we information on threats or provided data ‘‘vulnerable’’ extinction risk determined that the status of the that were already cited, discussed, and determination for the Guadalupe fur Guadalupe fur seal corresponded with considered in the draft status review seal, that we applied the corresponding the ESA definition of a ‘‘threatened’’ report (Miller 2015) or the proposed rule ESA listing status of ‘‘threatened’’ to species. Thus, as we did with the (80 FR 40969; July 14, 2015). Summaries this species. Furthermore, the Guadalupe fur seal listing of the substantive public comments commenter suggested that in addition to determination, we will continue to received, and our responses, are our practice of evaluating the source of evaluate all sources of available provided below, with references to our information the IUCN classification is information, in light of the ESA prior documents where relevant. based upon, in light of the standards on standards on extinction risk and Comment 1: One commenter agreed extinction risk and impacts or threats impacts or threats to the species, to with the listing determination, citing the (as discussed in our previous ESA inform our ESA listing determinations. evidence provided in the draft status listing findings), we should ensure that Comment 4: One commenter cited the review report (Miller 2015) that the we give adequate weight to the opinions new 2015 IUCN assessment of S. three species are at high risk of of the reasonable scientists who make squatina (Ferretti et al. 2015) as extinction due to threats of these threat determinations as well, evidence of the bleak status of the overutilization and inadequacy of especially given the fact that they are species. existing regulatory mechanisms. often preeminent experts on the species Response: We reviewed the new IUCN Response: We agree with the being assessed. The commenter stated assessment of S. squatina (Ferretti et al. commenter. that the IUCN species assessments, 2015) and evaluated the sources of available information cited within the Comment 2: One commenter themselves, are each essentially assessment in light of the ESA standards suggested that instead of a traditional scientific articles quantifying threats to on extinction risk and impacts or threats recovery plan for the endangered species, should be treated as an to the species. We did not find any new Squatina sharks, the Secretary should additional, independent scientific species-specific information on the contribute resources toward developing source, and should be given weight impacts of threats or the biological the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated beyond the mere citations that they response of the species to these threats (IUU) and Seafood Fraud Action Plan include. that was not already considered in the under the direction of the Presidential Response: As noted in many of our proposed rule and draft status review IUU Task Force. The commenter previous findings (see 81 FR 1376; report. The latest assessment references specifically mentioned that traceability January 12, 2016, and 81 FR 8874; many of the same studies and findings regulations are integral for the recovery February 23, 2016, for 2 recent discussed in the status review and of these Squatina species, and while examples), risk classifications by other proposed rule. We did, however, update imports into U.S. markets are likely organizations or made under other the status review based on information minimal (because catches are currently Federal or State statutes may be from a reference cited within Ferretti et so low), limitations on seafood informative, but such classification al. (2015), specifically Maynou et al. traceability preclude any enforcement of alone does not provide the rationale for (2011). Maynou et al. (2011) conducted the ESA import provisions. As such, the listing determinations (or even interview surveys of 106 retired IUU design principles around preliminary 90-day findings) under the fishermen who used to fish (either in traceability are especially relevant to the ESA. As mentioned in the 90-day the small scale fisheries or trawl fishers) recovery of these species and the finding for these species (78 FR 69376; in the Catalan, Ligurian, Tyrrhenian, strategy will advance the recovery of November 19, 2013), species north Adriatic, and Hellenic Seas, to see these, and other, internationally classifications under IUCN and the ESA if these fishermen perceived any trends threatened species. are not equivalent, and data standards, in dolphin and shark abundances Response: Once a species is listed as criteria used to evaluate species, and between 1940 and 1999. As it applies to threatened or endangered, section 4 of treatment of uncertainty are also not the three Squatina species of this action, the ESA requires that we develop and necessarily the same. As the commenter the results from these interviews suggest implement recovery plans that must, in notes, our practice is to evaluate the that angelsharks disappeared from the part, identify objective, measurable source of information that the IUCN Catalan Sea probably before 1959, from criteria which, when met, would result classification is based upon in light of waters off the western Italian coast by in a determination that the species may the standards on extinction risk and the early 1980s, and from waters off be removed from the list. However, we impacts or threats discussed above. This Sardinia by the mid-1980s. As we note that the action to develop recovery was applicable even in the case of the already assumed potential extirpations plans for these Squatina species is not Guadalupe fur seal, although the of these species in the Ligurian and part of the determination for listing, commenter misrepresents the listing Tyrrhenian Seas and off the Balearic which is the subject of this action, and, determination basis, implying that we Islands based on other available thus, will not be considered further listed the Guadalupe fur seal as information, this new information does here. The Presidential Task Force on ‘‘threatened’’ based on the IUCN’s not change our conclusions regarding Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood ‘‘vulnerable’’ risk determination. In fact, the extinction risk of the species, but Fraud and the Action Plan for as noted in the final determination for does provide further support for our Implementing the Task Force the Guadalupe fur seal (50 FR 51252; assumptions and findings. Recommendations are also beyond the December 16, 1985), the IUCN Comment 5: One commenter scope of this rulemaking. submitted comments on the proposed disagreed with our assessment of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 50396 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

climate change threat to the three species to the impacts of climate common angelshark in order to evaluate Squatina species. The commenter change.’’ Therefore, based on the best the significance of this particular threat asserted that climate change is likely to available information (i.e., the Jones et on the species’ risk of extinction. As the harm all three Squatina species and al. (2013) paper) we did not find any commenter has made clear, the impact provided the following reasons: (1) The evidence to suggest that climate change of climate change on the extinction risk climate change threat was only assessed contributes significantly to the of S. squatina appears negligible as it for S. squatina in United Kingdom (UK) extinction risk of S. squatina, and, will unlikely alter the threat of waters (based on the Jones et al. (2013) additionally, we have no information to overutilization to the species. Although paper) and, therefore, our conclusion suggest that climate change contributes a very minor range shift may occur, regarding climate change impacts are significantly to the extinction risk of the there is no information to suggest the purely speculative for S. aculeata and S. other two Squatina species. species’ response to climate change oculata; (2) Our expected decrease in The commenter also asserts that our impacts would significantly alter its the angelshark species’ overlap with expected decrease in the angelshark extinction risk (either through a commercially-targeted species is species’ overlap with commercially- decrease or increase in risk). unlikely to occur; (3) Our projected targeted species, and the projected Additionally, the commenter provides increase in protected angelshark range is increase in protected angelshark range, no information on the actual threat that unlikely to occur; and (4) the three are unlikely to occur, and speculates climate change poses to the species, angelshark species are likely entirely that the three angelshark species will be such as the species’ biological or unable to migrate to avoid the effects of unable to migrate to avoid the effects of physiological responses to climate climate change. climate change. In the proposed rule, we change impacts and the actual need for Response: Broad statements about cited findings from the Jones et al. the species to migrate elsewhere, and generalized threats to the species, such (2013) paper, including that the impacts we could find no such information. As as climate change, or identification of from a range shift due to climate change such, our conclusion remains the same: factors that could negatively impact a would likely be offset by an increase in The best available information does not species, do not constitute substantial availability of protected habitat areas for suggest that climate change contributes information that listing may be the common angelshark (S. squatina). significantly to the extinction risk of the warranted. We look for information We also noted that the predicted range species. indicating that not only is the particular shift would shrink the (common) Comment 6: One commenter provided species exposed to a factor, but that the angelshark’s overlap with other new information on historical catch of species may be responding in a negative commercially-targeted species. The Squatina species in the Adriatic Sea fashion; then we assess the potential commenter states that the proposed (based on fish market data; Raicevich significance of that negative response. climate-induced shifts in range and Fortibuoni 2013) and information Based on our comprehensive review discussed in the Jones et al. (2013) on benthic shark exploitation in the of the literature, the Jones et al. (2013) paper predict only slight increases in Canary Islands (Couce-Montero et al. paper was the only information we habitat suitability in candidate marine 2015). found that provided an analysis of the protected areas, and because these are Response: We have updated the status threat of climate change and potential only candidate areas, the commenter review report to include this response by a Squatina species (S. notes that it is unclear whether these information. In particular, the new squatina). While the commenter habitat areas will ever even be protected information indicates the contemporary disagreed with our reliance on the Jones in the future. Additionally, according to presence of S. squatina in the Adriatic et al. (2013) paper, the commenter did the Jones et al. (2013) paper, and Sea (which was previously thought to be not provide any new species-specific acknowledged by the commenter, S. potentially extirpated), but information on the threat of climate squatina was predicted to have a small, demonstrates the significant decline in change or evidence that the Squatina but negative change of 2.7 percent in both abundance and size that has species are responding in a negative median overlap across all commercial occurred in the population since the fashion to the threat. As such, and as species investigated. However, the early 20th century (Fortibuoni et al. stated in the proposed rule, the best commenter argues that this change is so 2016), providing additional evidence of available information does not indicate miniscule when considering the effects the overutilization of the species in this that climate change is contributing that fishing of commercially-targeted part of its range. Similarly, the Couce- significantly to the extinction risk of species in areas currently overlapping Montero et al. (2015), which was a these species. Below we provide further with S. squatina has had over the last broad-scale study of the impacts of comments on each of the commenter’s several decades. As such, bycatch artisanal, recreational and industrial points mentioned above. pressure on S. squatina will likely fleets on the Gran Canaria (Canary The commenter mentioned that the remain high as the overlap will remain Islands) marine ecosystem, found climate change threat was only assessed almost entirely the same. Finally, the overall fishing pressure by these fleets for S. squatina in UK waters and, commenter speculates that the three to be high and benthic sharks, as a therefore, our conclusion regarding angelshark species may be unable to functional group, to be overexploited. climate change impacts are purely move to avoid climate change due to This new information does not change speculative for S. aculeata and S. limited dispersal capabilities. our conclusions regarding the extinction oculata. We disagree that our As already thoroughly discussed in risk of the Squatina species. conclusions are speculative. Rather, we the proposed rule and draft status Comment 7: One commenter state that our conclusions are based on review for these angelshark species, we suggested we consider the global the best available information. In the agree that overutilization is a significant impacts of recreational fishing on S. proposed rule, we note that besides the threat that has led to S. squatina being squatina and S. aculeata, providing a Jones et al. (2013) study (which presently in danger of extinction. The general description of some of the examined the impacts from climate purpose of the above information and aspects of recreational fishing and ways change for S. squatina in UK waters), discussion was to evaluate the specific it differs from commercial fishing. ‘‘we found no other information impact of climate change and the Response: In our evaluation of threats regarding the response of Squatina corresponding likely response of the in both the draft status review report

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 50397

and proposed rule, we did consider requesting that the Canary Islands species is not common in the fisheries impacts of recreational fishing on the become a shark and ray sanctuary, that catch yet susceptible to the traditional Squatina species (see the S. squatina be added to the Canarian fishing gear, indicates that the species Overutilization for Commercial, catalogue of protected species, and that has likely significantly declined in Recreational, Scientific, or Educational recreational fishing in the Canary abundance in Libyan waters over the Purposes sections of both documents). Islands be prohibited. past 10 years. We find this information As the commenter did not provide any Response: We have updated the status lends further support to our conclusion new species-specific information on review with the provided information that these species are presently at a high threats from recreational fishing effort where appropriate. None of the risk of extinction throughout their that was not already considered in the information provided by the commenter respective ranges. proposed rule and draft status review (which was primarily life history and Comment 11: The Sierra Leone report, we have no reason to change our distribution data for S. squatina within Embassy, through the Ministry of evaluation of the threat at this time. the Canary Islands) changed our Fisheries and Marine Resources, Comment 8: One commenter provided analysis of the threats to the species. As commented that the three Squatina information on the ancient and stated in the proposed rule, current sharks are found throughout the entire contemporary use of S. oculata in Spain conservation efforts, including those by coastal waters of Sierra Leone, and for therapeutic purposes (Vallejo and ElasmoCan, are helping to increase the endemic in the southern tip, from the Gonzalez 2014) and suggested this use scientific knowledge about S. squatina shoal of Saint Ann to the boundary of is an additional threat to the species. and promote public awareness of the Liberia and potentially beyond. Their Response: The paper cited by the species (as demonstrated by the presence has been recorded in both petitioner, Vallejo and Gonzalez (2014), petitions cited by the commenter); industrial fisheries and research survey provides simply an inventory of the fish however, there is no indication that data collected from 2008–2010. species that have been used for these efforts are currently effective in Squatina oculata has also been recorded medicinal purposes from ancient times reducing the threats to the species, from artisanal landing sites in Bonthe, to recent times in Spain. While we have particularly those related to Sierra Leone. However, overall, in Sierra updated the status review to include overutilization and the inadequacy of Leone waters, the Squatina species are this new information on the use of the existing regulatory mechanisms. As sparsely distributed and seldom caught. species, neither the study, nor the such, our conclusion from the proposed The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine commenter, provide information on the rule regarding the overall extinction risk Resources expressed support for the extent or frequency that this species is of S. squatina remains the same. listing of these species as endangered collected for traditional Spanish In addition to requesting public and provided a list of draft fisheries remedies. Also, the contemporary comment on our proposed rule, we also regulations pertaining to sharks, but evidence identified in the paper directly solicited comments from the noted that they will not close areas to corresponds to S. squatina in Gran foreign ambassadors of countries where fishing to protect these species. Canaria (Canary Islands), as opposed to the three Squatina species occur. We Response: We thank the Sierra Leone S. oculata, and is from a 2004 article received responses from three Ministry of Fisheries and Marine (Gonza´lez Salgado 2004) that also embassies, and their comments, as well Resources for the comments and have provides no information on the extent or as our responses, are provided below. updated the status review accordingly. frequency of use of S. squatina in Comment 10: The Libyan Embassy, We note that while the survey data traditional medicines. Finally, current through Dr. Ramadan, consultant of the mentioned above indicate the recent regulations in Spain prohibit these International Cooperation Office of the presence of S. squatina in Sierra Leone Squatina species from being captured, General Corporation for Agriculture on waters, the range of the species in the injured, traded, imported, or exported. fisheries and marine resources of Libya, Eastern Atlantic is thought to extend Therefore, we do not find any indication commented that while the three only as far south as Mauritania. It is that the use of these species in Squatina sharks are found in Libyan unclear if these findings indicate a range traditional Spanish remedies is an waters, they are not targeted by expansion for the species, new additional threat that significantly fishermen, nor are they common in the migratory routes, a reflection of the true increases these species’ risks of catch. However, most of the fishing gear range of the species that was previously extinction. used in the traditional fisheries can unknown due to poor sampling of the Comment 9: One commenter provided catch the species (including trammel region, or perhaps, and more likely, suggested edits to the background nets, gillnets, bottom trawls, longlines, misidentification of the species, as the portions of the draft status review report and illegal explosive), and when caught species has yet to be identified from any to reflect the research they and others as bycatch, Libyans will consume these other countries south of Mauritania, have conducted on S. squatina in the sharks. Dr. Ramadan also provided despite expansive historical sampling. Canary Islands, and included names of the two marine protected areas Additionally, the draft nature of the information on the conservation in Libya that could afford the species regulations provided by the Ministry, initiatives of their nonprofit some protection: Wadi Elkouf and Ain and uncertainty regarding their organization (ElasmoCan). Specifically, El Gazala, both located on the eastern implementation or effectiveness, the commenter provided new (or Mediterranean coast. coupled with the implication that the clarified previous) information on the Response: We thank Dr. Ramadan for Ministry will not consider area closures reproduction, growth, and distribution the comments and have updated the where the species are found because of S. squatina, identified a status review accordingly. While the they inhabit major fishing grounds in micropredator of S. squatina in the proposed rule and draft status review the territorial waters of Sierra Leone, we Canary Islands, provided details on the noted that the three Squatina species do not consider these efforts adequate to trawling prohibition in the Canary were ‘‘relatively common’’ in Libyan mitigate the existing threats to the point Islands, and highlighted the research waters, with a caveat that there was no where extinction risk is significantly they have conducted on the common corresponding citation or more recent lowered for these three species. angelshark within the Canary Islands. data to support the statement, this new Comment 12: The Embassy of Greece, They also provided links to petitions information, particularly that the through the Hellenic Ministry of Rural

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 50398 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Development and Food, commented communications, which, together with oculata), and common angelshark (S. that Greece meets its obligations arising previously cited references, represent squatina) are taxonomically-distinct from international conventions, such as the best available scientific and species and therefore meet the the Barcelona Convention, and is a party commercial data on S. aculeata, S. definition of ‘‘species’’ pursuant to to the General Fisheries Commission of oculata, and S. squatina: El Dia Digital section 3 of the ESA and are eligible for the Mediterranean (GFCM), the regional 2000; Lamboeuf et al. 2000; Maynou et listing under the ESA. fisheries management organization al. 2011; Narva´ez 2012; Narva´ez et al. Summary of Factors Affecting the Three whose convention area includes 2014; Couce-Montero et al. 2015; Species Mediterranean waters and the Black Gelbalder 2015; Osaer et al. 2015; Osaer Sea. The measures adopted by the and Narva´ez 2015; Dr. Ramadan Next we consider whether any one or GFCM are incorporated into European personal communication (pers. comm.) a combination of the five threat factors Law. The Ministry specifically 2016; ElasmoCan pers. comm. 2016; specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA highlighted GFCM recommendation Fitzpatrick et al. 2016; Fortibuoni et al. contribute to the extinction risk of these GFCM/36/3012/3, which prohibits those 2016; Narva´ez and Osaer 2016; Sierra species. The comments that we received sharks on Annex II of the Specially Leone Ministry of Fisheries and Marine on the proposed rule and the additional Protected Areas and Biological Diversity Resources pers. comm. 2016. However, information that became available since (SPA/BD) Protocol to the Barcelona the information not previously included the publication of the proposed rule did Convention (which include the three in the draft status review or proposed not change our conclusions regarding Squatina species) from being retained rule does not present significant new any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their on board, transhipped, landed, findings that change any of our interactions for these species. In fact, transferred, stored, sold or displayed, or proposed listing determinations. the majority of the new information offered for sale. The Ministry noted that received (Maynou et al. 2011; Couce- Status Review the species must be released, as far as Montero et al. 2015; Dr. Ramadan pers. possible, unharmed and alive, and that The status review for the three comm. 2016; Fortibuoni et al. 2016; there is an obligation of owners of angelshark species was conducted by a Hellenic Ministry of Rural Development fishing vessels to record information NMFS biologist in the Office of and Food pers. comm. 2016; Sierra related to fishing activities, including Protected Resources. In order to Leone Ministry of Fisheries and Marine capture data, incidental catch, and complete the status review, we Resources pers. comm. 2016), and releases and/or discards of species. compiled information on the species’ described previously in our response to Response: We thank the Hellenic biology, ecology, life history, threats, comments, lends further support to our Ministry of Rural Development and and conservation status from conclusion that the threats of Food for the comments and have information contained in the petition, overutilization and inadequacy of updated the status review accordingly. our files, a comprehensive literature existing regulatory mechanisms are We note that while these regulations search, and consultation with experts. contributing significantly to the risk of and retention prohibitions may Prior to publication of the proposed extinction for all three Squatina species. decrease, to some extent, fisheries- rule, the status review was subjected to Therefore, we incorporate herein all related mortality of the Squatina species peer review. Peer reviewer comments information, discussion, and in the Mediterranean, for the most part, are available at http:// conclusions on the summary of factors it appears that these Squatina species www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/ affecting the three angelshark species in are normally discarded due to their low prplans/PRsummaries.html. The status the status review report (Miller 2016) commercial value. Given the species’ review report has since been updated and proposed rule (80 FR 40969; July assumed high mortality rates in fishing (Miller 2016) based on the 14, 2015). gear (around 60 percent in trawls and aforementioned information submitted Extinction Risk 25–67 percent in gillnets), vulnerability by the public and new information to exploitation, present demographic collected since the publication of the None of the information we received risks, population declines and potential proposed rule, and is available at: from public comment on the proposed local extirpations to the point where all http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ rule affected our extinction risk three species are rarely observed petition81.htm. evaluations of these three angelshark throughout the Mediterranean, and the This status review report provides a species. We note that based on evidence of continued intensive thorough discussion of the life history, comments from Dr. Ramadan (pers. demersal fisheries operating throughout demographic risks, and threats to the comm. 2016), we no longer find it likely the Mediterranean, we conclude that three angelshark species. We considered that the S. oculata may be more these regulatory mechanisms are all identified threats, both individually common in portions of the central unlikely to significantly decrease the and cumulatively, to determine whether Mediterranean (i.e., Libya), as was Squatina species’ risks of extinction. these angelshark species respond in a previously stated in the proposed rule. way that causes actual impacts at the Additionally, based on the information Summary of Changes From the species level. The collective condition from Fortibuoni et al. (2016), we no Proposed Listing Rule of individual populations was also longer consider S. squatina to be We reviewed, and incorporate as considered at the species level, extirpated from the entire Adriatic Sea, appropriate, scientific data from according to the four viable population but find that the information from references that were not previously descriptors discussed above. Maynou et al. (2011) provides further included in the draft status review support for our assumption of the report (Miller 2015) and proposed rule Species Determinations likelihood of extirpations of the (80 FR 40969; July 14, 2015). We also Based on the best available scientific Squatina species in the Ligurian, incorporate, as appropriate, relevant and commercial information described Tyrrhenian, and Catalan Seas. information received as or referenced above, and included in the Additionally, we reviewed a recent communications during the public status review report, we have abstract (Fitzpatrick et al. 2016) that comment process. We include the determined that the sawback angelshark provided preliminary information on following references and (S. aculeata), smoothback angelshark (S. the genetic population dynamics of S.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 50399

squatina in the Canary Islands, and suffered a significant curtailment of its species and (b) that may require special found that the results of low genetic range. These species’ natural biological management considerations or diversity support our previous vulnerability to overexploitation and protection; and (2) specific areas outside assumption that the species is likely present demographic risks (e.g., low and the geographical area occupied by a comprised of small, fragmented and declining abundance, small and isolated species at the time it is listed upon a isolated populations that are at an populations, patchy distribution, and determination that such areas are increased risk of random genetic drift low productivity) are currently essential for the conservation of the and could experience the fixing of exacerbating the negative effects of these species. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA recessive detrimental alleles, reducing threats and placing these species in (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, the overall fitness of the species. danger of extinction. After considering to the extent prudent and determinable, While this information has been used efforts being made to protect each of critical habitat be designated to provide minor updates to our status these species, we could not conclude concurrently with the listing of a review report, our evaluations and that the existing or proposed species. However, critical habitat shall conclusions regarding extinction risk for conservation efforts would alter the not be designated in foreign countries or these species remain the same. extinction risk for any of these species. other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 Therefore, we incorporate herein all Therefore, we are listing all three CFR 424.12 (h)). information, discussion, and species as endangered. The best available scientific and conclusions, with the minor updates commercial data as discussed above noted above, on the extinction risk of Effects of Listing identify the geographical areas occupied the three angelshark species in the Conservation measures provided for by S. aculeata, S. oculata, and S. status review report (Miller 2016) and species listed as endangered or squatina as being entirely outside U.S. proposed rule (80 FR 40969; July 14, threatened under the ESA include jurisdiction, so we cannot designate 2015). recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); occupied critical habitat for these Federal agency requirements to consult species. We can designate critical Protective Efforts with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA habitat in areas in the United States Finally, we considered conservation to ensure their actions do not jeopardize currently unoccupied by the species if efforts to protect each species and the species or result in adverse the area(s) are determined by the evaluated whether these conservation modification or destruction of critical Secretary to be essential for the efforts are adequate to mitigate the habitat should it be designated (16 conservation of the species. The best existing threats to the point where U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical available scientific and commercial extinction risk is significantly lowered habitat if prudent and determinable (16 information on these species does not and the species’ status is improved. U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions indicate that U.S. waters provide any While none of the information we on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). In addition, specific essential biological function for received from public comment on the recognition of the species’ plight any of the Squatina species. Therefore, proposed rule affected our conclusions through listing promotes conservation based on the available information, we regarding conservation efforts to protect actions by Federal and State agencies, are not designating critical habitat for S. the three angelshark species, we have foreign entities, private groups, and aculeata, S. oculata, or S. squatina. updated the status review report (Miller individuals. Because the ranges of these Identification of Those Activities That 2016) to reflect the information three species are entirely outside U.S. provided by ElasmoCan during the Would Likely Constitute a Violation of jurisdiction, the main effects of these Section 9 of the ESA public comment period on their endangered listings are prohibitions on conservation initiatives in the Canary take, including export and import. On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS Islands (ElamoCan pers. comm. 2016). published a policy (59 FR 34272) that We incorporate herein all information, Identifying Section 7 Consultation requires us to identify, to the maximum discussion, and conclusions on the Requirements extent practicable at the time a species protective efforts for the three Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) is listed, those activities that would or angelshark species in the status review of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS would not likely constitute a violation report (Miller 2016) and proposed rule regulations require Federal agencies to of section 9 of the ESA. Because we are (80 FR 40969; July 14, 2015). consult with us to ensure that activities listing the three Squatina species as they authorize, fund, or carry out are not endangered, all of the prohibitions of Final Determination likely to jeopardize the continued section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to We have reviewed the best available existence of listed species or destroy or these species. These include scientific and commercial information, adversely modify critical habitat. It is prohibitions against the import, export, including the petition, the information unlikely that the listing of these species interstate or foreign trade (including in the status review report (Miller 2016), under the ESA will increase the number delivery, receipt, carriage, shipment, the comments of peer reviewers, public of section 7 consultations, because these transport, sale and offering for sale), and comments, and information that has species occur entirely outside of the ‘‘take’’ of these species. These become available since the publication United States and are unlikely to be prohibitions apply to all persons subject of the proposed rule. Based on the best affected by Federal actions. to the jurisdiction of the United States, available information, we find that all including in the United States, its three Squatina species are in danger of Critical Habitat territorial sea, or on the high seas. Take extinction throughout their respective Critical habitat is defined in section 3 is defined as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, ranges. We assessed the ESA section of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 4(a)(1) factors and conclude that S. The specific areas within the or collect, or to attempt to engage in any aculeata, S. oculata, and S. squatina all geographical area occupied by a species, such conduct.’’ The intent of this policy face ongoing threats of overutilization at the time it is listed in accordance is to increase public awareness of the by fisheries and inadequate existing with the ESA, on which are found those effects of this listing on proposed and regulatory mechanisms throughout their physical or biological features (a) ongoing activities within the species’ ranges. Squatina squatina has also essential to the conservation of the ranges. Activities that we believe could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 50400 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

(subject to the exemptions set forth in continued possession of parts that were of-information requirement for the 16 U.S.C. 1539) result in a violation of in possession at the time of listing. Such purposes of the Paperwork Reduction section 9 prohibitions for these species parts may be non-commercially Act. include, but are not limited to, the exported or imported; however the Executive Order 13132, Federalism following: importer or exporter must be able to (1) Possessing, delivering, provide evidence to show that the parts In accordance with E.O. 13132, we transporting, or shipping any individual meet the criteria of ESA section 9(b)(1) determined that this final rule does not or part (dead or alive) taken in violation (i.e., held in a controlled environment at have significant Federalism effects and of section 9(a)(1); the time of listing, in a non-commercial that a Federalism assessment is not (2) Delivering, receiving, carrying, activity). required. transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce any individual or References List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 part, in the course of a commercial A complete list of the references used Endangered and threatened species, activity; in this final rule is available upon Exports, Imports, Transportation. (3) Selling or offering for sale in request (see ADDRESSES). Dated: July 26, 2016. interstate or foreign commerce any Samuel D. Rauch III, individual or part, except antique Classification articles at least 100 years old; and Deputy Assistant Administrator for National Environmental Policy Act Regulatory Programs, National Marine (4) Importing or exporting these Fisheries Service. angelshark species or any part of these The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in species. section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the For the reasons set out in the We emphasize that whether a information that may be considered preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is amended violation results from a particular when assessing species for listing. Based as follows: activity is entirely dependent upon the on this limitation of criteria for a listing facts and circumstances of each decision and the opinion in Pacific PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE incident. Further, an activity not listed Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F.2d AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES may in fact constitute or result in a 825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has ■ 1. The authority citation for part 224 violation. concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental continues to read as follows: Identification of Those Activities That assessment requirements of the National Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 Would Not Likely Constitute a Violation Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). U.S.C. 1361 et seq. of Section 9 of the ESA Executive Order 12866, Regulatory ■ 2. In § 224.101, amend the table in Although the determination of Flexibility Act, and Paperwork paragraph (h) by adding entries for whether any given activity constitutes a Reduction Act ‘‘Angelshark common,’’ ‘‘Angelshark violation is fact dependent, we consider sawback,’’ and ‘‘Angelshark the following actions, depending on the As noted in the Conference Report on smoothback’’ in alphabetical order circumstances, as being unlikely to the 1982 amendments to the ESA, under the ‘‘Fishes’’ table subheading to violate the prohibitions in ESA section economic impacts cannot be considered read as follows: 9: (1) Take authorized by, and carried when assessing the status of a species. out in accordance with the terms and Therefore, this final rule is exempt from § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered conditions of, an ESA section review under Executive Order 12866 marine and anadromous species. 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for and the economic analysis requirements * * * * * purposes of scientific research or the of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not (h) The endangered species under the enhancement of the propagation or applicable to the listing process. This jurisdiction of the Secretary of survival of the species; and (2) final rule does not contain a collection- Commerce are:

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical habitat ESA rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s)

******* FISHES Angelshark, common ...... Squatina squatina ...... Entire species ...... 81 FR [Insert Federal NA NA Register page where the document begins], August 1, 2016. Angelshark, sawback ...... Squatina aculeata ...... Entire species ...... 81 FR [Insert Federal NA NA Register page where the document begins], August 1, 2016. Angelshark, smoothback Squatina oculata ...... Entire species ...... 81 FR [Insert Federal NA NA Register page where the document begins], August 1, 2016.

******* 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 50401

* * * * * Background on the IATTC fishing operations and is delivered into [FR Doc. 2016–18071 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am] On April 22, 2016, NMFS published the vessel hold. In this circumstance, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P a proposed rule in the Federal Register the mobulid ray may be stored on board (81 FR 23669) to implement Resolution and landed, but the vessel owner or operator must show the whole mobulid DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE C–15–04 adopted by the IATTC in 2015. The proposed rule contained additional ray to the on-board vessel observer at background information, including the point of landing for recording National Oceanic and Atmospheric purposes, and then dispose of the Administration information on the IATTC, the international obligations of the United mobulid ray at the direction of the States as an IATTC member, and the responsible government authority. In 50 CFR Part 300 U.S. ports, the responsible governmental need for regulations. The 30-day public authority is the NOAA Office of Law [Docket No. 160104009–6617–02] comment period for the proposed rule Enforcement divisional office nearest to RIN 0648–BF65 closed on May 23, 2016. The final rule is implemented under the port or other authorized personnel. International Fisheries; Tuna and the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. Mobulid rays that are caught and landed in this manner may not be sold or Tuna-Like Species in the Eastern 951 et seq.), as amended on November bartered, but may be donated for Pacific Ocean; Fishing Restrictions 5, 2015, by title II of Public Law 114– purposes of domestic human Regarding Mobulid Rays 81. The recent amendments provide that consumption consistent with relevant the Secretary of Commerce, in AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries laws and policies. consultation with the Secretary of State In addition, this rule would also Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and and, with respect to enforcement Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), revise related codified text for measures, the Secretary of the consistency with the recent Commerce. Department of Homeland Security, may ACTION: Final rule. amendments to the Tuna Conventions promulgate such regulations as may be Act made by Title II of Public Law 114– necessary to carry out U.S. international SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing regulations 81, effective on November 5, 2015 (Tuna obligations under the Convention, under the Tuna Conventions Act to Conventions Act of 1950). The rule including recommendations and implement Resolution C–15–04 updates the purpose and scope for 50 decisions adopted by the IATTC. The (Resolution on the Conservation of CFR part 300, subpart C, by clarifying Secretary’s authority to promulgate such Mobulid Rays Caught in Association that the regulations in the subpart are regulations has been delegated to with Fisheries in the IATTC Convention issued under the ‘‘amended’’ authority NMFS. of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, Area) of the Inter-American Tropical This rule implements Resolution C– Tuna Commission (IATTC). These and that the regulations implement 15–04 for U.S. commercial fishing ‘‘recommendations and other decisions’’ regulations prohibit any part or whole vessels used in the IATTC Convention carcass of mobulid rays (i.e., the family of the IATTC for the conservation and Area and prohibits any part or whole management of stocks of ‘‘tunas and Mobulidae, which includes manta rays carcass of a mobulid ray caught by (Manta spp.) and devil rays (Mobula tuna-like species and other species of vessels owners or operators in the fish taken by vessels fishing for tunas spp.)) caught in the IATTC Convention IATTC Convention Area from being Area from being retained on board, and tuna-like species’’ in the IATTC retained on board, transshipped, landed, Convention Area. The rule also updates transshipped, landed, stored, sold, or stored, sold, or offered for sale. The rule offered for sale. These regulations also the definitions description at § 300.21 to provides that the crew, operator, and clarify that the terms defined in § 300.2 provide requirements for the release of owner of a U.S. commercial fishing mobulid rays. This rule also revises include terms defined in the Antigua vessel must promptly release unharmed, Convention. The rule also revises the related codified text for consistency to the extent practicable, any mobulid with the recent amendments to the Tuna description in § 300.25, which states ray (whether live or dead) caught in the how NOAA implements IATTC Conventions Act. This action is IATTC Convention Area as soon as it is necessary for the United States to satisfy recommendations and decisions seen in the net, on the hook, or on the through rulemaking, to clarify that the its obligations as a member of the deck, without compromising the safety IATTC. Secretary, in consultation with the of any persons. If a mobulid ray is live Secretary of State and, with respect to DATES: This rule is effective August 1, when caught, the crew, operator, and enforcement measures, the U.S. Coast 2016. owner of a U.S. commercial fishing Guard on behalf of the Secretary of the ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory vessel must follow the requirements for Department of Homeland Security, may Impact Review and other supporting release that are incorporated into promulgate such regulations as may be documents are available via the Federal regulatory text. Regulations at 50 CFR necessary to carry out U.S. international eRulemaking Portal: http:// 300.25 already required purse seine obligations. www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA– vessels to release all rays, except those In addition, to improve the readability NMFS–2016–0035 or by contacting the being retained for consumption aboard of the regulatory text, this action moves Regional Administrator, William W. the vessel, as soon as practicable after several paragraphs of regulatory text Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Region, being identified on board the vessel related to bycatch in § 300.25(e) to a 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. 1, during the brailing operation. This rule new section (§ 300.27) that is dedicated Seattle, WA 98115–0070, or revises regulations at 50 CFR 300.25 to to incidental catch and retention RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@ specify that there are other regulatory requirements. Several paragraphs in the noaa.gov. release requirements specifically for prohibitions at § 300.24 are updated for mobulid rays, as described below. consistency with the new section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The rule provides an exemption in the Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS, West Coast case of any mobulid ray caught in the Public Comments and Responses Region, 562–980–4036. IATTC Convention Area on a purse NMFS received three letters in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: seine vessel that is not seen during response to the proposed rule during the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Jul 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES