Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 12/Thursday, January 19, 2017

Home , Blackchin guitarfish, Common guitarfish

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 6309

Maximum civil Law Citation Type of violation monetary penalty

(2) Violations referred to in 16 U.S.C. 635 3373(a)(2). (e) Marine Mammal Protection Act of 16 U.S.C. 1375 ...... Any violation ...... 25,409 1972. (f) Recreational Hunting Safety Act of 16 U.S.C. 5202(b) ...... (1) Violation involving use of force or 16,169 1994. violence or threatened use of force or violence. (2) Any other violation ...... 8,084 (g) Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation 16 U.S.C. 5305a(b)(2) ...... Any violation ...... 17,688 Act of 1998. (h) Wild Bird Conservation Act ...... 16 U.S.C. 4912(a)(1) ...... (1) Violation of section 4910(a)(1), sec- 42,618 tion 4910(a)(2), or any permit issued under section 4911. (2) Violation of section 4910(a)(3) ...... 20,456 (3) Any other violation ...... 853

Dated: January 10, 2017. ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species Listing Species Under the Endangered Michael J. Bean, Division, NMFS Office of Protected Species Act Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish We are responsible for determining and Wildlife and Parks. Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. whether species are threatened or [FR Doc. 2017–00889 Filed 1–18–17; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Brendan Newell or Marta Nammack 1531 et seq.). To make this NMFS, Office of Protected Resources determination, we consider first (OPR), (301) 427–8403. whether a group of organisms DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, then whether the status of the species National Oceanic and Atmospheric Background qualifies it for listing as either Administration On July 15, 2013, we received a threatened or endangered. Section 3 of petition from WildEarth Guardians to the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ to include 50 CFR Part 223 list 81 marine species or subpopulations ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or as threatened or endangered under the plants, and any distinct population [Docket No. 150211138–7024–02] ESA. This petition included species segment of any species of vertebrate fish from many different taxonomic groups, or wildlife which interbreeds when RIN 0648–XD771 and we prepared our 90-day findings in mature.’’ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife batches by taxonomic group. We found Section 3 of the ESA defines an and Plants; Final Rule To List Two that the petitioned actions may be endangered species as ‘‘any species Guitarfishes as Threatened Under the warranted for 24 of the species and 3 of which is in danger of extinction Endangered Species Act the subpopulations and announced the throughout all or a significant portion of initiation of status reviews for each of its range’’ and a threatened species as AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78 one ‘‘which is likely to become an Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR endangered species within the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, foreseeable future throughout all or a Commerce. November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, significant portion of its range.’’ We ACTION: Final rule. February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be February 24, 2014). On September 19, one that is presently in danger of SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue a final rule 2016, we published a proposed rule to extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on to list two foreign marine guitarfish list the blackchin guitarfish (Rhinobatos the other hand, is not presently in species under the Endangered Species cemiculus) and the common guitarfish danger of extinction, but is likely to Act (ESA). We considered comments (Rhinobatos rhinobatos) as threated become so in the foreseeable future (that submitted on the proposed listing rule species (81 FR 64094). We requested is, at a later time). In other words, the and have determined that the blackchin public comment on information in the primary statutory difference between a guitarfish (Rhinobatos cemiculus) and draft status review and proposed rule, threatened and endangered species is common guitarfish (Rhinobatos and the comment period was open the timing of when a species may be in rhinobatos) warrant listing as threatened through November 18, 2016. This final danger of extinction, either presently species. We will not designate critical rule provides a discussion of the (endangered) or in the foreseeable future habitat for either of these species information we received during the (threatened). because the geographical areas occupied public comment period and our final When we consider whether a species by these species are entirely outside determination on the petition to list the might qualify as threatened under the U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not blackchin guitarfish and the common ESA, we must consider the meaning of identified any unoccupied areas within guitarfish under the ESA. The status of the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is U.S. jurisdiction that are currently the findings and relevant Federal appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable essential to the conservation of either of Register notices for the other 22 species future’’ as the horizon over which these species. and 3 subpopulations can be found on predictions about the conservation DATES: This final rule is effective our Web site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ status of the species can be reasonably February 21, 2017. species/petition81.htm. relied upon. The foreseeable future

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 6310 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

considers the life history of the species, mitigate the existing threats. Section (2007) in the discussion about growth habitat characteristics, availability of 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the rates. data, particular threats, ability to predict Secretary, when making a listing Response: The k value from Ismen et threats, and the reliability to forecast the determination for a species, to take into al. (2007) has been added to the effects of these threats and future events consideration those efforts, if any, being discussion in the Reproduction and on the status of the species under made by any State or foreign nation to Growth section of the status review. consideration. Because a species may be protect the species. Comment 4: One commenter claimed susceptible to a variety of threats for our analysis is biased because we Summary of Comments which different data are available, or discuss ‘‘conflict’’ in the literature which operate across different time In response to our request for regarding conclusions researchers have scales, the foreseeable future is not comments on the proposed rule, we reached about the two guitarfish necessarily reducible to a particular received five comment letters. Two species’ reproductive potential and number of years. comment letters were from foreign growth rates. This commenter stated Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us governments and clarified information that these different conclusions reached to determine whether any species is about their relevant regulations. One by researchers are not conflicting endangered or threatened due to any of comment letter was from an conclusions but are evidence of the following factors: The present or environmental nonprofit organization intraspecies variation, which could be threatened destruction, modification, or supporting our proposed listing evidence of population structure. The curtailment of its habitat or range; decision. Two comment letters were same party made multiple other overutilization for commercial, submitted anonymously, each comments about regional variations in recreational, scientific, or educational challenging a number of our statements morphology and biology indicating purposes; disease or predation; the or conclusions in the status review or population structure. An additional inadequacy of existing regulatory proposed rule, generally without commenter also claimed that there is mechanisms; or other natural or providing references or evidence that more evidence for population manmade factors affecting its continued would allow us to investigate further. structuring in these guitarfishes than existence. Under section (4)(b)(1)(A), we One commenter also provided some three ESA-listed species of angelshark, are also required to make listing editorial comments, which were Squatina aculeata, S. oculata, and S. determinations based solely on the best incorporated in the status review as squatina. These three Squatina species scientific and commercial data appropriate. Summaries of issues raised were listed as endangered on August 1, available, after conducting a review of by the public comments received and 2016 (81 FR 50394). This commenter the species’ status and after taking into our responses are provided below, with provided no references to validate this account efforts being made by any state references where appropriate. claim. or foreign nation to protect the species. Comment 1: One commenter pointed Response: We disagree with the In making a listing determination, we out that R. cemiculus is also referred to commenter’s implication that noting first determine whether a petitioned in some of the literature by the conflicting conclusions from different species meets the ESA definition of a taxonomic synonym Glaucostegus authors about a species’ life history ‘‘species.’’ Next, using the best available cemiculus. implies bias. We acknowledge that information gathered during the status Response: The fact that Glaucostegus variations in biology in different review for the species, we complete a cemiculus is a synonym for R. portions of a species’ range could imply status and extinction risk assessment. In cemiculus has been added to the population structure. However, Lteif assessing extinction risk for these two Taxonomy and Distinctive (2015) attributed these variations to guitarfishes, we considered the Characteristics section of the status environmental differences throughout demographic viability factors developed review. Although we did not include each species’ range (e.g., food by McElhany et al. (2000). The approach this synonym in the draft status review availability and water temperatures) or of considering demographic risk factors this did not impact the development of the relatively small amount of data on to help frame the consideration of the status review or proposed rule. We the species and differences in sampling extinction risk has been used in many were aware of this synonym and approach. ICES (2010) stated that the of our status reviews, including for searched for publications related to this relationships between the Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye species using both Rhinobatos Mediterranean and Atlantic stocks of R. pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound cemiculus and Glaucostegus cemiculus cemiculus and R. rhinobatos are rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped while gathering information for the unclear. We found no other discussions hammerhead sharks, and black abalone status review. of population structure in the available (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for Comment 2: One commenter information. Given the lack of links to these reviews). In this approach, disagreed with our description of the information, we could not reach the collective condition of individual smallest reported length for a fish in a conclusions about population structure. populations is considered at the species study as the ‘‘minimum total length Our status review presents the best level according to four viable (TL),’’ stating that minimum TL is available information and notes where population descriptors: abundance, always 0 mm for all animals. authors have reached different growth rate/productivity, spatial Response: The word minimum was conclusions to accurately represent the structure/connectivity, and diversity. used while discussing the smallest available information. These viable population descriptors lengths ever reported for juveniles of Comment 5: One commenter asserted reflect concepts that are well-founded in each species. We did not intend to that the discussion in the status review conservation biology and that imply that the reported lengths were the of both species’ preference for warmer individually and collectively provide smallest possible lengths that the waters is moot because the only strong indicators of extinction risk animals could be. We have revised the temperature data provided in the (NMFS 2015). status review to clarify this point. document is sea surface temperature We then assess efforts being made to Comment 3: One commenter noted data, and as both species are demersal, protect the species to determine if these that we did not include the k value for they live below the thermocline. This conservation efforts are adequate to R. rhinobatos reported in Ismen et al. commenter also asserted that, in our

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 6311

discussion about the threat of climate However, the data in question were related to both species, and guitarfishes change in the status review, we failed to collected across two different fisheries in general, in all of the countries and address specifically how changing (longline and gillnet) and in each case seas that are considered part of either bottom temperatures will affect the the data were collected over multiple species’ historical range. In the status species. months in both 2007 and 2008 years review, we considered and incorporated Response: According to the best (Echwikhi et al., 2013; Echwikhi et al.. the best available information, which available scientific information, both of 2012). Echwikhi et al. (2013) and included peer reviewed scientific the guitarfishes are demersal species Echwikhi et al. (2012) discuss their articles, regional checklists of that typically occur up to a maximum results in the context of the trends in ichthyofauna, studies of fishers’ depth of 100m and spend at least a elasmobranch abundance declines in knowledge, reports from conservation portion of their lives in shallow waters. the region. An additional citation organizations (e.g., IUCN), and museum The only information we found (Bradaı¨ et al., 2006) has been added to records. We also used relevant data from regarding how these species interact the status review and provides further long term datasets such as trawl surveys with water temperature is that both indication that both species have been and regional fisheries databases, species prefer warmer, subtropical and are commonly targeted and landed including the MEDITS survey program waters (Capape and Zaouali 1994; in southern Tunisia. Given the high (International bottom trawl survey in Corsini-Foka 2009; Edelist 2014). The proportion of these guitarfish species in the Mediterranean) and the discussion in the status review is about the studied artisanal fisheries catches, International Council for the the role that temperature likely plays in and the fact that these species are Exploration of the Sea (ICES) DATRAS restricting many Mediterranean species known to be commonly targeted and (Baino et al., 2001; Bertrand et al., 2000, to biogeographic ranges. While we landed in southern Tunisia, it is likely ICES 2016). The only publications that consider this information relevant to that the abundance trends for these we found that concluded that both understanding both guitarfish species’ species are similar to the overall trend species were common throughout the habitat and distribution, we explicitly of declining elasmobranch catches in northwestern Mediterranean were the acknowledged in the draft status review southern Tunisia. IUCN assessments of both species that we found no information on how Comment 7: One commenter made (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2007a; any particular isotherm affects the several comments that there is no Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2007b) and distribution and abundance of these evidence that R. rhinobatos and R. ICES (2010). All three of these reports guitarfish species. We found no cemiculus were likely historically rare specifically discuss and provide discussion in the scientific literature throughout most of the northwestern references for both species once being regarding how these species interact Mediterranean relative to other portions common off the Balearic Islands and with thermoclines, the depths of which of its range (e.g., the southern and Sicily, which make up a small amount likely vary seasonally and regionally eastern Mediterranean). The same of the overall area of the northwestern given the wide distribution of these commenter challenged our conclusion Mediterranean. No references were cited species (Coll et al., 2010). Specifically that both species have likely always in these three reports to provide regarding climate change, Akyol and been rare in all parts of their Atlantic evidence that R. rhinobatos or R. Capape´ (2014) and Rafrafi-Nouira et al. ranges north of the Strait of Gibraltar. cemiculus were common in the (2015) both attributed shifts in R. This commenter asserted that we failed remaining area of the northwestern cemiculus distribution to warming to include museum records and Mediterranean. waters but did not discuss bottom anthropological literature, but the Comment 8: One commenter noted temperatures or thermoclines. No commenter did not provide any the lack of explanation about what we references were provided by the references. mean by ‘‘available literature.’’ commenter to explain how both species Response: Our interpretation of the Response: A summary of how we interact with thermoclines or invalidate best available information is that R. compiled the information used in the our interpretation that sea surface and rhinobatos and R. cemiculus were status review was added to the second mixed layer temperature is likely present, but likely uncommon or rare paragraph of the Scope and Intent of relevant to the distribution of these throughout most of the northwestern Present Document section of the status subtropical species. Mediterranean (including the waters off review. Comment 6: One commenter asserted Spain, the seas around Italy, and, in the Comment 9: Regarding the that our assumption that both guitarfish case of R. rhinobatos, the waters of Overutilization for Commercial, species are likely mirroring the trend of France), with the exception of the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational decreasing elasmobranch and batoid waters around Sicily and the Balearic Purposes section of the status review, (rays, skates, guitarfishes, etc.) landings Islands. This interpretation is consistent one commenter stated: ‘‘Generally in in southern Tunisia, where the best with the conclusions reached in the best this section you misunderstand the available information shows that both available scientific literature (Akyol and difference between science and fisheries guitarfish species made up a high Capape´ 2014; Capape´ et al., 2006; data. Scientifically gathered data is proportion of the total elasmobranch Capape´ et al., 1975; Dul:iu¨ et al., 2005; preferable and you are required to use catch in the longline and gillnet Psomadakis et al., 2009). In the parts of the best available SCIENCE. Fisheries fisheries over a 2-year period, is flawed, their Atlantic ranges north of the Strait catch and landing data are not the best because, ‘‘A high percentage of one of Gibraltar, as stated in the status possible type of data, are not species in a catch at one time says review, we found information that scientifically gathered and have serious nothing about the trend of that species indicates both species have been rare for flaws which you ignore entirely.’’ over time as different species can be at least the last 45 years (ICES 2016), Response: The commenter incorrectly targeted or caught with different and no information that indicates either restricts the information we are required methods or have different population species was common at any time in to use. ESA Section 4(b)(1)(A) states: structures and sources and sinks.’’ what is known to be the northern extent ‘‘The Secretary shall make Response: We agree that a high of their ranges. determinations required by [Section percentage of one species in a catch at To reach these conclusions we 4](a)(1) solely on the basis of the best one time does not indicate a trend. searched for data and publications scientific and commercial data available

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 6312 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

to him . . .’’ There is a paucity of the status review is contradictory these species, but not the only shark scientific studies on both species range because it claims both increased and species to do so. wide, including the almost complete decreased landings in Egyptian Comment 15: One commenter stated lack of fisheries independent population fisheries. that in the Commercial Overutilization data, a fact that is well documented in Response: In Egypt, an increase in in the Atlantic section of the status the status review and proposed rule. We effort across fisheries led to a decrease review ‘‘you claim Rhinobatos is found agree that additional scientifically in overall fisheries landings, but an in the highest numbers but you fail to gathered data would greatly enhance increase in the landings of, and demand say compared to what or part of what our ability to accurately understand the for, elasmobranchs, which had grouping.’’ status of both species. However, when previously been discarded. The Response: The sentence the analyzing the threat of commercial commenter appears to have commenter is referring to is a quote fisheries to these guitarfishes, fisheries misunderstood the discussion in the provided in a series of quotes of the data are relevant and valuable. status review. Elasmobranch landings qualitative descriptions of elasmobranch Therefore, this information must be increased because the landings of fisheries in West African nations by considered as a source of ‘‘best scientific preferred, non-elasmobranch targets Diop and Dossa (2011). In all cases, and commercial data available,’’ were decreasing. Thus, elasmobranchs, Diop and Dossa (2011) were discussing regardless of flaws with these data, which were always caught but landing of guitarfishes relative to other which are acknowledged and discussed previously discarded, have been landed elasmobranchs. Additional text has been throughout the status review. at a higher rate by fishers to offset the added to the Commercial Comment 10: Also regarding the decreasing availability of other species. Overutilization in the Atlantic section to discussion of commercial Comment 13: Regarding the clarify this point. overutilization in the Overutilization for discussion in the status review of the Comment 16: One commenter pointed Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or development of the shark (and other out the recent evidence suggesting a Educational Purposes section of the shark-like elasmobranchs) fin industry decline in the demand for shark fins. Response: A paragraph further status review, one commenter asks: in the Atlantic, one commenter stated, discussing trends in demand for shark ‘‘why is only bycatch considered?’’ ‘‘you claim a need for increased effort Response: All types of interactions fins and meat, as well as the uncertainty CAUSES a need to maximize profits. with commercial and artisanal fisheries related to how these shifts in demand This is quite [a] twist on economic are considered and described in the are impacting both guitarfish species, theory which usually has causation go status review, including bycatch from has been added to the Commercial from the desire for profit as the starting industrial and artisanal fishing and Overutilization in the Atlantic section of point causing need for more effort . . .’’ targeted fishing of both guitarfish the status review. species by artisanal fishers using Response: This conclusion was Comment 17: One commenter stated gillnets, longlines, and beach based reached by Diop and Dossa (2011) who that we are required to consider the lines. The commenter may have missed provide the most comprehensive report interaction of the ESA Section 4 (a)(1) the information by focusing on only one on shark fishing in West Africa factors but failed to do so. part of the discussion within the available. As explained in the status Response: The commenter is correct section. review, as fisheries in easily accessible that we are required to consider the Comment 11: Regarding the passage areas became overexploited, fishers had interaction between the ESA 4(a)(1) in the status review: ‘‘At the time of the to travel farther to find fish. This factors, and we did so. We present a 2007 publication of the IUCN report increased effort raised their cost of discussion of the interactions among the Overview of the Conservation Status of doing business (e.g., fuel costs). Because threats and each species’ demographic Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyans) storage capacity is limited on fishing risks in the Extinction Risk Analysis in the Mediterranean Sea,’’ by Cavanagh vessels, and shark fins are more sections of the status review for each and Gibson (2007) there were six valuable than other products that would species. However, because data on both Mediterranean elasmobranchs affected take up more space, shrinking profit species and their threats are generally by target fisheries . . . It is unclear if R. margins that resulted from the need to lacking, a more detailed analysis of the rhinobatos and R. cemiculus were two increase effort contributed to the interactions among the threat factors of the six targeted species referenced in unsustainable shift to retaining a larger was not possible. this report’’, one commenter asked how percentage of the highest value products Comment 18: One commenter stated it can be unclear if the two Rhinobatos (i.e., shark fins from many sharks) rather that we incorrectly limited our analysis species were not part of the six species than utilizing the entire shark or less to present and future threats only and referred to in Cavanagh and Gibson valuable species. that we should have also considered (2007). Comment 14: One commenter stated past threats. Response: Cavanagh and Gibson that while we noted in the status review Response: The ESA and the section 4 (2007) did not discuss which that large sharks, such as dusky sharks, regulations require that we list a species elasmobranch species or groups were are predators of Rhinobatos spp., we if the species is endangered or part of past or present targeted fisheries, failed to discuss how the decline of threatened because of any of the five except for using angelsharks (Squatina dusky sharks would impact R. factors in ESA section 4 (a)(1). Included spp.) as an example of species that had cemiculus and R. rhinobatos. in our risk analysis is an assessment of become so rare they were no longer Response: Based on our analysis, the manifestation of past threats that targeted. Therefore, it was not possible predation is not posing a threat to either have contributed to the species’ current to determine which six Mediterranean guitarfish species and, with the status. elasmobranch species were considered exception of one sentence in Camhi et Comment 19: One commenter stated, to be affected by targeted fisheries by al. (2005), we found no additional ‘‘Foreseeable future discussion is Cavanagh and Gibson (2007). information regarding predation on confounded and you just assert your Comment 12: One commenter stated guitarfishes by any shark species. timeline, you provide no evidence it is that the discussion of elasmobranch Additionally, dusky sharks were an the best available. Assertions really landing trends in Egyptian fisheries in example of a large shark that preys on arent [sic] facts.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 6313

Response: As discussed in Box 2: Faruggia et al. (1998) based on the for the guitarfishes than the angelsharks, Defining Foreseeable Future in the information provided. and; (8) The guitarfishes were likely in status review, the foreseeable future for We were already aware of Seck et al. demand and serially exploited even both guitarfish species (15–20 years) is (2004), Ali et al. (2008), Bauchot (1987), earlier than the angelsharks. based on these species’ life histories and McEachran and Capape (1984), and Response: While we acknowledge that the main threats each species faces. Whitehead et al. (1984). Seck et al. all five species share some similarities Given the relatively low productivity of (2004) was used and cited in our draft in biology, ecology, and threats, we do these species, it will likely take more status review and proposed rule. Ali et not base decisions on whether or not than one generation for these species to al. (2008) was not available online or one species should be listed as recover. 15–20 years corresponds to through interlibrary loan during the threatened or endangered solely on approximately three generations of R. development of the status review, similarities in life history traits or cemiculus, which likely reproduces at a proposed rule, and final rule, and we circumstances with other listed species. slower rate than R. rhinobatos. 15–20 reached out to one of the authors We assess each species individually years is also a reasonable period of time regarding this and another publication based on the best scientific and to project the continued threats of but have not received a response. commercial information available, overutilization and inadequacy of Because this comment was submitted considering both the demographic risks existing regulations. Many of the anonymously, we also could not contact facing the species as well as current and regulations that protect these species the commenter with a request for a copy future threats that may affect the have recently been adopted and are of this or other references. Bauchot species’ status. Data on all five species inadequately enforced. Given both (1987), McEachran and Capape (1984), are lacking, but the best available species’ reproductive life history traits, and Whitehead et al. (1984) are information shows that all three 15–20 years is a reasonable amount of identification guides that provide basic angelsharks are extremely rare time to foresee continued decline of taxonomic and life history information throughout most of their ranges, with both species should these regulations consistent with information already evidence of declines in abundance and continue to be inadequate, which seems included in the status review. Thus, subsequent extirpations and range likely at this time. The commenter these references provided no additional curtailment, while both guitarfishes are provided no information to invalidate information that would affect our status likely still somewhat abundant in any or all of the justification for our review. relatively larger portions of their ranges, definition. Comment 22: One comment letter such as within portions of the southern asserted that our decision to list R. Comment 20: One commenter pointed and eastern Mediterranean and West rhinobatos and R. cemiculus as out that in our discussion of the Africa (Echwikhi et al., 2012; Golani threatened is arbitrary and capricious increase in abundance of R. rhinobatos 2006; Ismen et al., 2007, Lteif 2015, M. because the commenter believes that in the Tunis Northern and Southern Ducrocq, Parcs Gabon, pers. comm. to J. both guitarfish species are ‘‘in at least as Shultz, NMFS, 21 June, 2016; Miller Lagoon after restoration, we did not bad a condition’’ as three species of 2016, Saad et al., 2006). discuss the possibility that individuals angelshark, Squatina aculeata, S. To specifically address some of the could be migrating into the area without oculata, and S. squatina, which are commenter’s points about guitarfish, an increase in the overall population. listed as endangered under the ESA (81 regarding point (6), while both the Response: A sentence acknowledging FR 50394). This commenter provided guitarfish and the angelsharks face that it is unknown if the increase of R. the following reasons for this opinion: threats from commercial fishing, it is rhinobatos in the Tunis Lagoons is the (1) These five species are all demersal not appropriate to directly compare the result of an increasing population or elasmobranchs that share similar ranges, fishing related threats these species face. simply individuals migrating into what thus they face similar spatial threats; (2) For example, the fin trade has has become suitable habitat has been The maximum depth that the contributed to the decline of the added to the Demographic Risk Analysis guitarfishes occur in (100m) is guitarfishes but is not a direct threat to section of the status review. shallower than the angelsharks’ the angelsharks, while historical Comment 21: One commenter stated maximum depth (550m), thus the commercial fishing pressure on that we missed the following references: guitarfishes must be easier for humans angelsharks has already made these Ali et al. (2008), Ambrose (2004), to catch, increasing their vulnerability; species so rare that they can no longer Bauchot (1987), Faruggia, Feretti, Lloris, (3) Guitarfishes have a faster support fisheries in most areas. and Rucabado (1998), McEachran and reproductive cycle, smaller litter size, Regarding points (5) and (7), the Capape (1984), Seck et al. (2004), later age at maturity, and likely longer commenter provided no references to Valadou (2003), and Whitehead et al. life span than the angelsharks, which verify the assertions about the two (1984). makes the guitarfishes less resilient to guitarfishes’ population structures or Response: In response to this overexploitation; (4) The guitarfishes, abundance throughout their respective comment, we conducted a search for the but not the angelsharks, are known to ranges or the presence of guitarfish in references listed that we were unaware have an inshore migration for the Canary Islands, so we are unable to of, which were Ambrose (2004), reproduction, putting the guitarfishes at determine the validity of any data upon Valadou (2003), and Faruggia et al. a greater risk from human threats; (5) which the commenter based these (1998). Only an abstract for Ambrose. There is more evidence of population assertions. As such, without any new (2004) was available online, which structuring for the guitarfishes than the information to consider, we maintain contained no information about angelsharks, resulting in smaller, our previous conclusion in the proposed guitarfishes. Because we were not able isolated, less resilient populations; (6) rule that the two guitarfish species are to review this publication we have not There is higher commercial demand and likely to be in danger of extinction in included it in this analysis. We fewer conservation efforts for the the foreseeable future throughout their requested but have not received a copy guitarfishes than the angelsharks; (7) ranges and, thus, are threatened species of Valadou (2003), which is a master’s Abundance data, including data from under the ESA. dissertation that we cannot access the Canary Islands and the northwest Additionally, we also wish to clarify online. We were also unable to find Mediterranean, support a worse status some of the information presented for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 6314 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

angelsharks, particularly in response to will likely, to some extent, reduce the information on how these efforts affect the commenter’s points in (2) and (4). fishing related mortality to both guitarfish in Turkey, this new We note that while S. aculeata and S. guitarfish species, it does not appear information does not change our oculata have maximum depths of up to that either species is common in Greek conclusion that current regulations are 500 m and 560 m, respectively, S. waters. Therefore we conclude that inadequate to protect either species. aculeata can be found in depths as these regulatory mechanisms are As discussed in the status review, shallow as 30 m and S. oculata is more unlikely to significantly decrease both fishing for all shark species, including commonly found in depths between 50 Rhinobatos species’ risks of extinction. guitarfishes, has been banned since m and 100 m. Squatina squatina is Comment 24: The Lebanese Ministry 2003 in Banc d’Arguin National Park. generally found in shallower water, of Agriculture, through the Embassy of Additional information on regulatory from inshore areas out to the continental Lebanon, commented that fishing both efforts from 1998 to 2003 has been shelf in depths of 5 m to 150 m. This Rhinobatos species is prohibited in added to the Regulatory Mechanisms in species is also thought to conduct Lebanon by decision number 1045/1 the Atlantic section of the status review. inshore migrations in the summer, with issued on November 25, 2014, based on This information provides context for reports of beachgoers being bitten by GFCM recommendation GFCM/36/ how the current protective regulations small (likely juvenile) angelsharks 3012/3. Based on this decision, they were developed in Banc d’ Arguin, (suggesting inshore migration for welcomed our proposal to list both which are currently adequately reproduction). This information on guitarfishes species as threatened under protecting both species in this small these species, as well as additional the ESA. portion of their ranges, a fact that was information on the threats and status of Response: We thank the Lebanese acknowledged in the draft status review. the three angelsharks, can be found in Ministry of Agriculture for the The fact that Nigeria prohibits the the proposed (80 FR 40969; July 14, comments and have updated the status dumping of shark carcasses at sea has 2015) and final rules (81 FR 50394; review accordingly. We note that the also been added to the Regulatory August 1, 2016) listing these species information available to us (Lteif 2015) Mechanisms in the Atlantic section. under the ESA, as well as the status indicates that regulations related to While this information augments our review for these three species (Miller these guitarfish species are not knowledge of regulations that may affect 2016), available on our Web site at adequately enforced. However, we note these species, we found no information www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ that these conclusions were reached on how this regulation is enforced and petition81.htm. based on data that were collected up very little information on guitarfish in Comment 23: The Embassy of Greece, until approximately the time that Nigeria in general. Thus, it does not through the Hellenic Ministry of Rural decision number 1045/1 was issued, so change our conclusion that current Development and Food, commented the enforcement of relevant regulations regulations are inadequate to protect that Greece meets its obligations arising may now be effective. Given the either species. from international conventions, such as uncertainty regarding the enforcement Comment 26: One commenter the Barcelona Convention, and is a party of these regulations, and the relatively strongly supported our proposed rule to the General Fisheries Commission of small portion of both species’ ranges and encouraged us to finalize the our the Mediterranean (GFCM), the regional that occur in Lebanese waters, we listing decision in a timely manner, fisheries management organization conclude that these regulatory incorporate comments and suggestions whose convention area includes mechanisms are unlikely to significantly submitted during the comment period, Mediterranean waters and the Black decrease both Rhinobatos species’ risks and incorporate a full analysis of all the Sea. The measures adopted by the of extinction range wide. factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. GFCM are incorporated into European Comment 25: One commenter noted Response: We appreciate this Law. The Ministry specifically that in the Inadequacy of Existing comment. We have incorporated all highlighted GFCM recommendation Regulations section of the status review substantive comments received into the GFCM/36/3012/3, which prohibits those we did not mention relevant Turkish status review and this final rule and elasmobranchs on Annex II of the laws, species specific laws for fully analyzed the ESA section 4(a)(1) Specially Protected Areas and Biological Rhinobatos species in Banc d’Arguin factors using the best available scientific Diversity (SPA/BD) Protocol to the National Park (Mauritania), and a ban and commercial information. Barcelona Convention (which includes on finning in Nigeria. Response: The commenter provided Summary of Changes From the both guitarfish species) from being Proposed Listing Rule retained on board, transhipped, landed, no references regarding any of these transferred, stored, sold or displayed, or regulations. We found no information We reviewed, and incorporated as offered for sale. The Ministry noted that about Turkish laws relevant to appropriate, scientific data from the species must be released, as far as guitarfishes or sharks and rays in references that were not previously possible, unharmed and alive, and that general and the General Fisheries included in the draft status review there is an obligation for owners of Commission for the Mediterranean (Newell 2016) and proposed rule (81 FR fishing vessels to record information National Legislation Database (available 64094; September 19, 2016). We related to fishing activities, including at: http://nationallegislation.gfcm included the following references and capture data, incidental catch, and secretariat.org) lists no such relevant communications, which, together with releases and/or discards of species. The law. However, some additional previously cited references, represent Ministry recently adopted and released information about general fisheries the best available scientific and Circular No. 4531/83795/20–07–2016 to management efforts in Turkey, commercial data on R. cemiculus and R. inform all stakeholders of the provisions including vessel registrations, gear rhinobatos: Ambrose et al. (2005), of the above protection measures. restrictions, and seasonal area closures Ateweberhan et al. (2012), Carla Jazzar, Response: We thank the Hellenic has been added to the Regulatory Embassy of Lebanon, pers. comm. to D. Ministry of Rural Development and Mechanisms in the Mediterranean Wieting, NMFS (7 December, 2016), Food for the comments and have section of the status review. Because Caverivie`re and Andriamirado (1997), updated the status review accordingly. these management efforts are not Coll (2010), D. Berces, University of We note that while these regulations specific to guitarfish, and we have no Florida, pers. comm. to B. Newell,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 6315

NMFS, (14 November, 2016), Farrugio et evaluations of these two guitarfish years). Therefore, we are listing both al. (1993), Hellenic Ministry of Rural species. Therefore, we incorporate species as threatened under the ESA. Development pers. comm. (2016), HSI herein all information, discussion, and Effects of Listing (2016), ICES (2010), and OECD conclusions, with the minor updates (undated). However, the information not noted above, on the extinction risk of Conservation measures provided for previously included in the draft status the two guitarfish species in the status species listed as threatened under the review or proposed rule does not review (Newell 2016) and proposed rule ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. present significant new findings that (81 FR 64094; September 19, 2016). 1533(f)); Federal agency requirements to change either of our proposed listing consult with NMFS under section 7 of Protective Efforts determinations. The updated status the ESA to ensure their actions do not review (Newell 2016) is available at: As part of our evaluation of the status jeopardize the species or result in www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ of the guitarfishes, we considered adverse modification or destruction of petition81.htm. conservation efforts to protect each critical habitat should it be designated species and evaluated whether these (16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical Status Review conservation efforts are adequate to habitat if prudent and determinable (16 The status review for both guitarfish mitigate the existing threats to the point U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions species was conducted by a NMFS where extinction risk is significantly on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538) through a biologist in the Office of Protected lowered and the species’ status is rule promulgated under section 4(d). In Resources. In order to complete the improved. None of the information we addition, recognition of the species’ status review, we compiled information received from public comment on the plight through listing promotes on the species’ biology, ecology, life proposed rule affected our conclusions conservation actions by Federal and history, threats, and conservation status regarding conservation efforts to protect State agencies, foreign entities, private from information contained in the the two guitarfish species. We groups, and individuals. petition, our files, a comprehensive incorporate herein all information, literature search, and consultation with discussion, and conclusions on the Identifying Section 7 Consultation experts. Prior to publication of the protective efforts for both guitarfish Requirements proposed rule, the status review was species in the status review (Newell Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) subjected to peer review. Peer reviewer 2016) and proposed rule (81 FR 64094; of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS comments are available at September 19, 2016). regulations require Federal agencies to _ consult with us to ensure that activities www.cio.noaa.gov/services programs/ Final Determination prplans/PRsummaries.html. This status they authorize, fund, or carry out are not review provides a thorough discussion There is significant uncertainty likely to jeopardize the continued of the life history, demographic risks, regarding the status of the current existence of listed species or destroy or and threats to the two guitarfish species. populations of both R. rhinobatos and R. adversely modify critical habitat. It is We considered all identified threats, cemiculus, but both species may still be unlikely that the listing of these species both individually and cumulatively, to relatively common, although very likely under the ESA will increase the number determine whether these guitarfish below their historical population levels, of section 7 consultations, because these species respond in a way that causes in Tunisia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and species occur entirely outside of the actual impacts at the species level. The southeastern Turkey. Based on this United States and are unlikely to be collective condition of individual information, and the best available affected by Federal actions. scientific and commercial information, populations was also considered at the Critical Habitat species level, according to the four as summarized here, in the proposed viable population descriptors discussed rule (81 FR 64094; September 19, 2016), Critical habitat is defined in section 3 above. and in Newell (2016), we find that of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) neither Rhinobatos species is currently The specific areas within the Summary of Factors Affecting the Two at high risk of extinction throughout geographical area occupied by a species, Guitarfish Species their ranges. However, both species are at the time it is listed in accordance We considered whether any one or a at moderate risk of extinction. We with the ESA, on which are found those combination of the five threat factors assessed the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors physical or biological features (a) specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and conclude that R. rhinobatos and R. essential to the conservation of the contribute to the extinction risk of these cemiculus face ongoing threats of species and (b) that may require special species. The comments that we received overutilization by fisheries and management considerations or on the proposed rule and the additional inadequate existing regulatory protection; and (2) specific areas outside information that became available since mechanisms throughout their ranges. the geographical area occupied by a the publication of the proposed rule did Both species have also suffered a species at the time it is listed upon a not change our conclusions regarding curtailment of a large portion of their determination that such areas are any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their historical ranges. These species’ natural essential for the conservation of the interactions for these species. Therefore, biological vulnerability to species. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA we incorporate herein all information, overexploitation and present (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, discussion, and conclusions on the demographic risks (declining to the extent prudent and determinable, summary of factors affecting the two abundance, decreasing size of critical habitat be designated guitarfish species in the status review reproductive individuals, and low concurrently with the listing of a (Newell 2016) and proposed rule (81 FR productivity) are currently exacerbating species. However, critical habitat shall 64094; September 19, 2016). the negative effects of these threats. not be designated in foreign countries or Further, ongoing conservation efforts are other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 Extinction Risk not adequate to improve the status of CFR 424.12 (g)). None of the information we received these species. Thus, both species likely The best available scientific and from public comment on the proposed to become endangered throughout their commercial data as discussed above rule affected our extinction risk ranges in the foreseeable future (15–20 identify the geographical areas occupied

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 6316 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

by R. rhinobatos and R. cemiculus as account the effectiveness of available listing process. In addition, this final being entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, conservation measures. The section 4(d) rule is exempt from review under so we cannot designate occupied critical protective regulations may prohibit, Executive Order 12866. This final rule habitat for these species. We can with respect to threatened species, some does not contain a collection-of- designate critical habitat in areas in the or all of the acts which section 9(a) of information requirement for the United States currently unoccupied by the ESA prohibits with respect to purposes of the Paperwork Reduction the species if the area(s) are determined endangered species. These section 9(a) Act. by the Secretary to be essential for the prohibitions apply to all individuals, Executive Order 13132, Federalism conservation of the species. The best organizations, and agencies subject to available scientific and commercial U.S. jurisdiction. Because neither In accordance with E.O. 13132, we information on these species does not species has ever occupied U.S. waters, determined that this final rule does not indicate that U.S. waters provide any and the United States has no known have significant federalism effects and specific essential biological function for commercial or management interest in that a federalism assessment is not either of the Rhinobatos species. either species, we are not applying any required. Therefore, based on the available section 9(a) prohibitions to either List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 information, we are not designating species at this time. critical habitat for R. cemiculus or R. Endangered and threatened species, rhinobatos. References Exports, Imports, Transportation. Identification of Those Activities That A complete list of references used in Dated: January 10, 2017. Would Constitute a Violation of Section this final rule is available upon request Samuel D. Rauch, III, (see ADDRESSES). 9 of the ESA Deputy Assistant Administrator for On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS Classification Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. published a policy (59 FR 34272) that National Environmental Policy Act requires NMFS to identify, to the For the reasons set out in the maximum extent practicable at the time The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is amended a species is listed, those activities that section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the as follows: would or would not constitute a information that may be considered violation of section 9 of the ESA. when assessing species for listing. Based PART 223—THREATENED MARINE Because we are listing R. rhinobatos and on this limitation of criteria for a listing AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES R. cemiculus as threatened, no decision and the opinion in Pacific ■ prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 1. The authority citation for part 223 ESA will apply to these species. 825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded continues to read as follows: that ESA listing actions are not subject Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B, Protective Regulations Under Section to the environmental assessment § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 4(d) of the ESA requirements of the National 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for We are listing R. rhinobatos and R. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). § 223.206(d)(9). cemiculus as threatened under the ESA. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory ■ 2. In § 223.102, paragraph (e) add new In the case of threatened species, ESA entries for ‘‘Guitarfish, blackchin’’ and section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary’s Flexibility Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act ‘‘Guitarfish, common’’, in alphabetical discretion whether, and to what extent, order by common name under the to extend the section 9(a) ‘‘take’’ As noted in the Conference Report on ‘‘Fishes’’ table subheading to read as prohibitions to the species, and the 1982 amendments to the ESA, follows: authorizes us to issue regulations economic impacts cannot be considered necessary and advisable for the when assessing the status of a species. § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened conservation of the species. Thus, we Therefore, the economic analysis marine and anadromous species. have flexibility under section 4(d) to requirements of the Regulatory * * * * * tailor protective regulations, taking into Flexibility Act are not applicable to the (e) * * *

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

****** Fishes

****** Guitarfish, blackchin Rhinobatos cemciculus ... Entire species ...... 82 FR [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER page NA NA. where the document begins], Janu- ary 19, 2017. Guitarfish, common Rhinobatos rhinobatos .... Entire species ...... 82 FR [Insert FEDERAL REGISTER page NA NA. where the document begins], Janu- ary 19, 2017.

****** 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 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 6317

* * * * * Secretary of Commerce with respect to Bycatch at Chapters 3, 4, and 5 and [FR Doc. 2017–00680 Filed 1–18–17; 8:45 am] any fishery establish a standardized Appendix 5 (discussing regional BILLING CODE 3510–22–P reporting methodology to assess the bycatch and fisheries issues, reporting/ amount and type of bycatch occurring in monitoring measures, and precision the fishery, and include conservation goals for bycatch estimates, but noting DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and management measures that, to the that goals ‘‘may in some instances extent practicable, minimize bycatch exceed minimum statutory National Oceanic and Atmospheric and bycatch mortality (16 U.S.C. requirements’’). Administration 1853(a)(11)). See also 16 U.S.C. 1854(c) Additional background information— and (g) (authorizing Secretarial FMPs. including NMFS’ rationale for 50 CFR Part 600 Hereafter, ‘‘Council’’ includes the developing this rule, statutory and [Docket No. 1512–01999–6969–02] Secretary of Commerce as applicable historical background, and the purpose when preparing FMPs or amendments and scope of the rule—can be found in RIN 0648–BF51 under 16 U.S.C. 1854(c) and (g). See 50 the proposed rule that published on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9413). Copies Standardized Bycatch Reporting CFR 600.305(d). This standardized are available from NMFS (see Methodology reporting methodology is commonly referred to as a ‘‘Standardized Bycatch ADDRESSES), or can be viewed AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Reporting Methodology’’ (SBRM). This electronically at the Federal E- Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and final rule, which is promulgated Rulemaking portal for this action: http:// Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1855(d), sets forth www.regulations.gov. Commerce. NMFS’ interpretation of section Separate from this rulemaking, which ACTION: Final rule. 303(a)(11) and establishes national solely addresses reporting requirements and guidance for methodologies for bycatch as defined SUMMARY: This final rule interprets and developing, documenting, and under the MSA, NMFS has engaged in provides guidance on the requirement of reviewing SBRMs. A proposed rule for a broad range of activities since the the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery this action was published on February 1970s to address its bycatch-related Conservation and Management Act 25, 2016 (81 FR 9413), with public responsibilities under the MSA, the (MSA) that all fishery management comments accepted through April 25, Marine Mammal Protection Act plans (FMPs), with respect to any 2016. (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act fishery, establish a standardized Section 303(a)(11) was added to the (ESA), and other relevant statutes and reporting methodology to assess the MSA by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of international agreements. More amount and type of bycatch occurring in 1996 (SFA). The MSA does not define specifically, NMFS, the Councils, and a fishery. The final rule establishes ‘‘standardized reporting methodology’’ multiple partners have implemented requirements and provides guidance to or any of the words contained within management measures to minimize regional fishery management councils the phrase. Similar to section 303(a)(11), bycatch and bycatch mortality in and the Secretary of Commerce National Standard 9 (NS9) (16 U.S.C. fisheries (e.g., time and area closures); regarding the development, 1851(a)(9)) requires that conservation developed and/or researched bycatch documentation, and review of such and management measures ‘‘shall, to the reduction technologies for fishing gear methodologies, commonly referred to as extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch (e.g., turtle excluder devices and circle Standardized Bycatch Reporting and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be hooks); convened multi-stakeholder take Methodologies (SBRMs). avoided, minimize the mortality of such reduction teams to address marine mammal bycatch; supported national DATES: Effective February 21, 2017. bycatch.’’ However, NS9 does not address SBRM. research programs, such as the Bycatch ADDRESSES: Copies of the Categorical Prior to this rulemaking, NMFS never Reduction Engineering Program; Exclusion/Regulatory Impact Review issued regulations that set forth the promoted the adoption of bycatch (RIR)/Final Regulatory Flexibility Act basic requirements of the SBRM reduction measures in international Analysis (FRFAA) prepared for this provision. To implement the 1996 SFA regional fishery management action can be obtained from: Karen Amendments, NMFS developed NS9 organizations; and published a series of Abrams, National Marine Fisheries guidelines in 1998, and amended these biennial National Bycatch Reports and Service, 1315 East West Highway, Room guidelines in 2008. See 50 CFR 600.350. Updates since 2011 that provide a 13461, Silver Spring, MD 20910. An The guidelines provide several historical summary of fishery- and electronic copy of the CE/RIR/RFAA clarifications about bycatch species-specific bycatch estimates on an documents as well as copies of public requirements under the MSA, but do not annual basis for major U.S. fisheries comments received can be viewed at the interpret the SBRM requirement. In around the country, to cite a few Federal e-rulemaking portal: http:// 2004, NMFS published Evaluating examples. NMFS also has a database www.regulations.gov/ (Docket ID: Bycatch: A National Approach to from which members of the public can NOAA–NMFS–2012–0092). Standardized Bycatch Monitoring query bycatch estimates from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Programs (NOAA Technical National Bycatch Reports and Updates. Karen Abrams, 301–427–8508, or by Memorandum NMFS–F/SPO–66, See http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ email: [email protected]. October 2004, hereafter referred to as observer-home/first-edition-update-1. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Evaluating Bycatch), a report that was To build on its bycatch efforts, this year prepared by the agency’s National in February 2016, NMFS issued for Background Working Group on Bycatch (available at public comment a draft National Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson- http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/ Bycatch Reduction Strategy that aims to Stevens Fishery Conservation and SPO_final_rev_12204.pdf). The report coordinate NMFS’ efforts to address Management Act (MSA) requires that did not provide, or purport to provide, bycatch under the various mandates it is any fishery management plan (FMP) the agency’s interpretation of the basic charged with carrying out to further prepared by a regional fishery requirements of complying with MSA advance its work in addressing bycatch management council (Council) or the section 303(a)(11). See Evaluating both domestically and internationally.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:34 Jan 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JAR1.SGM 19JAR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES