sign in sign up
<<
Home , Barracuda, Requiem shark

96304 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- review of the species, as required by 0152, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, section 4(b)(3)(a) of the ESA, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric complete the required fields, and enter requested information to inform the Administration or attach your comments. agency’s decision on whether the • Mail: Submit written comments to species warranted listing as endangered 50 CFR Part 223 Chelsey Young, NMFS Office of or threatened under the ESA. Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East [Docket No. 151110999–6999–02] Listing Species Under the Endangered West Highway, Silver Spring, MD Species Act RIN 0648–XE314 20910, USA. Attention: Oceanic whitetip proposed rule. We are responsible for determining Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Instructions: Comments sent by any whether species are threatened or and Plants; Proposed Threatened other method, to any other address or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. Listing Determination for the Oceanic individual, or received after the end of 1531 et seq.). To make this Whitetip Under the Endangered the comment period, may not be determination, we first consider Species Act (ESA) considered by NMFS. All comments whether a group of organisms AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries received are a part of the public record constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under section 3 Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and and will generally be posted for public of the ESA, then whether the status of Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), viewing on www.regulations.gov the species qualifies it for listing as Commerce. without change. All personal identifying either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include ACTION: information (e.g., name, address, etc.), Proposed rule; request for ‘‘any subspecies of or wildlife or comments. confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information plants, and any distinct population SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a submitted voluntarily by the sender will segment of any species of fish comprehensive status review under the be publicly accessible. NMFS will or wildlife which interbreeds when Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ mature.’’ On February 7, 1996, NMFS ( A’’ in the required fields if you wish to and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service longimanus) in response to a petition remain anonymous). (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted from Defenders of Wildlife to list the You can find the petition, status a policy describing what constitutes a species. Based on the best scientific and review report, Federal Register notices, DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR commercial information available, and the list of references electronically 4722). The joint DPS policy identified including the status review report on our Web site at http:// two elements that must be considered (Young et al., 2016), and after taking www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ when identifying a DPS: (1) The into account efforts being made to oceanic-whitetip-shark.html. You may discreteness of the population segment protect the species, we have determined also receive a copy by submitting a in relation to the remainder of the that the oceanic whitetip shark warrants request to the Office of Protected species (or subspecies) to which it listing as a threatened species. We Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West belongs; and (2) the significance of the conclude that the oceanic whitetip Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, population segment to the remainder of shark is likely to become endangered Attention: Oceanic whitetip proposed the species (or subspecies) to which it throughout all or a significant portion of rule. belongs. Section 3 of the ESA defines an its range within the foreseeable future. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: endangered species as ‘‘any species Any protective regulations determined Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of which is in danger of extinction to be necessary and advisable for the Protected Resources, (301) 427–8403. throughout all or a significant portion of conservation of the species under ESA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: its range’’ and a threatened species as section 4(d) would be proposed in a one ‘‘which is likely to become an subsequent Federal Register Background endangered species within the announcement. Should the proposed On September 21, 2015, we received foreseeable future throughout all or a listing be finalized, we would also a petition from Defenders of Wildlife to significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, designate critical habitat for the species, list the oceanic whitetip shark in the context of the ESA, the Services to the maximum extent prudent and (Carcharhinus longimanus) as interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be determinable. We solicit information to threatened or endangered under the one that is presently at risk of assist in this listing determination, the ESA throughout its entire range, or, as extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on development of proposed protective an alternative, to list two distinct the other hand, is not currently at risk regulations, and the designation of population segments (DPSs) of the of extinction, but is likely to become so critical habitat in the event this oceanic whitetip shark, as described in in the foreseeable future. In other words, proposed listing determination is the petition, as threatened or a key statutory difference between a finalized. endangered, and to designate critical threatened and endangered species is DATES: Comments on this proposed rule habitat. We found that the petitioned the timing of when a species may be in must be received by March 29, 2017. action may be warranted for the species; danger of extinction, either now Public hearing requests must be on January 12, 2016, we published a (endangered) or in the foreseeable future requested by February 13, 2017. positive 90-day finding for the oceanic (threatened). The statute also requires us ADDRESSES: You may submit comments whitetip shark (81 FR 1376), to determine whether any species is on this document, identified by NOAA– announcing that the petition presented endangered or threatened as a result of NMFS–2015–0152, by either of the substantial scientific or commercial any of the following five factors: The following methods: information indicating the petitioned present or threatened destruction, • Electronic Submissions: Submit all action of listing the species may be modification, or curtailment of its electronic comments via the Federal warranted range wide, and explaining habitat or range; overutilization for eRulemaking Portal. Go to the basis for those findings. We also commercial, recreational, scientific, or www.regulations.gov/ announced the initiation of a status educational purposes; disease or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96305

; the inadequacy of existing www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ tips on its front dorsal, caudal, and regulatory mechanisms; or other natural oceanic-whitetip-shark.html. pectoral fins with black tips on its anal or manmade factors affecting its The status review report was fin and on the ventral surfaces of its continued existence (ESA, section subjected to independent peer review as pelvic fins. The head has a short and 4(a)(1)(A)–(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the required by the Office of Management bluntly rounded nose and small circular ESA requires us to make listing and Budget Final Information Quality eyes with nictitating membranes. The determinations based solely on the best Bulletin for Peer Review (M–05–03; upper jaw contains broad, triangular scientific and commercial data available December 16, 2004). The status review serrated teeth, while the teeth in the after conducting a review of the status report was peer reviewed by five lower jaw are more pointed and are only of the species and after taking into independent specialists selected from serrated near the tip. The body is account efforts being made by any State the academic and scientific community, grayish bronze to brown in color, but or foreign nation or political subdivision with expertise in shark biology, varies depending upon geographic thereof to protect the species. In conservation and management, and location. The underside is whitish with evaluating the efficacy of existing specific knowledge of oceanic whitetip a yellow tinge on some individuals protective efforts, we rely on the . The peer reviewers were asked (Compagno 1984). Services’ joint Policy on Evaluation of to evaluate the adequacy, Current Distribution Conservation Efforts When Making appropriateness, and application of data Listing Decisions (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; used in the status review as well as the The oceanic whitetip shark is March 28, 2003) for any conservation findings made in the ‘‘Assessment of distributed worldwide in epipelagic efforts that have not been implemented, Extinction Risk’’ section of the report. tropical and subtropical waters between ° ° or have been implemented but have not All peer reviewer comments were 30 North latitude and 35 South yet demonstrated effectiveness. addressed prior to finalizing the status latitude (Baum et al., 2006). In the western Atlantic, oceanic whitetips Status Review review report. We subsequently reviewed the status occur from Maine to Argentina, We convened a team of agency review report, its cited references, and including the Caribbean and Gulf of scientists to conduct the status review peer review comments, and believe the . In the central and eastern for the oceanic whitetip shark and status review report, upon which this Atlantic, the species occurs from prepare a report. The status review proposed rule is based, provides the Madeira, Portugal south to the Gulf of report of the oceanic whitetip shark best available scientific and commercial Guinea, and possibly in the (Young et al., 2016) compiles the best information on the oceanic whitetip . In the western available information on the status of shark. Much of the information Indian Ocean, the species occurs in the species as required by the ESA and discussed below on oceanic whitetip waters of South Africa, , assesses the current and future shark biology, distribution, abundance, Mozambique, Mauritius, Seychelles, extinction risk for the species, focusing threats, and extinction risk is , and within the Red Sea. Oceanic primarily on threats related to the five attributable to the status review report. whitetips also occur throughout the statutory factors set forth above. We However, we have independently Western and Central Pacific Ocean, appointed a biologist in the Office of applied the statutory provisions of the including China, Taiwan, the Protected Resources Endangered ESA, including evaluation of the factors Philippines, New Caledonia, Species Conservation Division to set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E), our (southern Australian coast), Hawaiian undertake a scientific review of the life regulations regarding listing Islands south to Samoa Islands, Tahiti history and ecology, distribution, determinations, and our DPS policy in and Tuamotu Archipelago and west to abundance, and threats to the oceanic making the 12-month finding the Galapagos Islands. Finally, in the eastern Pacific, the species occurs from whitetip shark. Next, we convened a determination. team of biologists and shark experts southern to Peru, including (hereinafter referred to as the Extinction Life History, Biology, and Status of the the Gulf of California and Clipperton Risk Analysis (ERA) team) to conduct an Petitioned Species Island (Compagno 1984). extinction risk analysis for the species, and Species Description Habitat Use and Movement using the information in the scientific review. The ERA team was comprised of The oceanic whitetip shark belongs to The oceanic whitetip shark is a highly a natural resource management the family Carcharhinidae and is migratory species of shark that is specialist from NMFS Office of classified as a (Order usually found offshore in the open Protected Resources, a fishery ). The oceanic ocean, on the outer continental shelf, or management specialist from NMFS’ whitetip belongs to the around oceanic islands in deep water, Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Carcharhinus, which includes other occurring from the surface to at least Management Division, and four research pelagic species of sharks, such as the 152 meters (m) depth. Although the fishery biologists from NMFS’ (Carcharhinus falciformis) oceanic whitetip can be found in Southeast, Northeast, Southwest, and and (C. obscuras), and is decreasing numbers out to latitudes of Pacific Island Fisheries Science Centers. the only truly oceanic (i.e., pelagic) 30° N and 35° S, with abundance The ERA team had group expertise in shark of its genus (Bonfil et al., 2008). decreasing with greater proximity to shark biology and ecology, population The oceanic whitetip shark has a stocky continental shelves, it has a clear dynamics, highly migratory species build with a large rounded first dorsal preference for open ocean waters management, and stock assessment fin and very long and wide paddle-like between 10° S and 10° N (Backus et al., science. The status review report pectoral fins. The first is very 1956; Strasburg 1958; Compagno 1984; presents the ERA team’s professional wide with a rounded tip, originating just Bonfil et al., 2008). The species can be judgment of the extinction risk facing in front of the rear tips of the pectoral found in waters between 15 °C and 28 the oceanic whitetip shark but makes no fins. The second dorsal fin originates °C, but it exhibits a strong preference for recommendation as to the listing status over or slightly in front of the base of the surface mixed layer in water with of the species. The status review report the anal fin. The species also exhibits a temperatures above 20 °C, and is is available electronically at http:// distinct color pattern of mottled white considered a surface-dwelling shark. It

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96306 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

is however, capable of tolerating colder tagging area, tagging and pop-up sites (72 percent) than in long-term waters down to 7.75 °C for short periods were relatively close to each other. In diets (47 percent), showing a as exhibited by brief, deep dives into the fact, five out of eight sharks ended their spatiotemporal difference in oceanic mesopelagic zone below the tracks relatively close to their starting whitetip feeding habits. Thus, the thermocline (>200 m), presumably for points, even after traveling several availability of large prey and foraging (Howey-Jordan et al., 2013; thousand kilometers (Tolotti et al., supplemental feeding from recreational Howey et al., 2016). However, 2015a). sport fishermen may be possible exposures to these cold temperatures are In the Indo-Pacific, two tagging mechanisms underpinning site-fidelity not sustained (Musyl et al., 2011; Tolotti studies of oceanic whitetip shark have and aggregation of oceanic whitetips at et al., 2015a) and there is some evidence been conducted: one in the central this location (Madigan et al., 2015). Pacific and one in the western Indian to suggest the species tends to withdraw Size and Growth from waters below 15 °C (e.g., the Gulf Ocean. In the central Pacific, oceanic of Mexico in winter; Compagno 1984). whitetip sharks showed a complex Historically, the maximum length effectively measured for the oceanic Little is known about the movement movement pattern generally restricted to whitetip was 350 cm total length (TL; or possible migration paths of the tropical waters north of the North Bigelow and Schroder 1948 cited in oceanic whitetip shark. Although the Equatorial Countercurrent near the Lessa et al., 1999), with ‘‘gigantic species is considered highly migratory tagging location. Maximum time at individuals’’ perhaps reaching 395 cm and capable of making long distance liberty was 243 days, but the largest linear movement was 2,314 nmi (4,285 TL (Compagno 1984), though movements, tagging data provides km) in 95 days (Musyl et al., 2011). Compagno’s length seems to have never evidence that this species also exhibits Similar to previously discussed studies, been measured (Lessa et al., 1999). In a high degree of philopatry (i.e., site long distance movements were also contemporary times, Lessa et al. (1999) fidelity) in some locations. To date, observed in the Indian Ocean, with one recorded a maximum size of 250 cm TL there have been three tagging studies tag that remained attached for 100 days. in the Southwest Atlantic, and conducted on oceanic whitetip sharks in This individual displayed extensive estimated a theoretical maximum size of the Atlantic. Mark recapture data horizontal movement covering a 325 cm TL (Lessa et al., 1999), but the (number tagged = 645 and recaptures = distance of approximately 6,500 km most common sizes are below 300 cm 8) from the NMFS Cooperative Shark during the monitored period, moving TL (Compagno 1984). The oceanic Tagging Program between 1962 and from the Mozambique Channel up the whitetip has an estimated maximum age 2015 provide supporting evidence that African east coast of Somalia and then of 17 years, with confirmed maximum the range of movement of oceanic heading back down towards the ages of 12 and 13 years in the North whitetip sharks is large, with potential Seychelles (Filmalter et al., 2012). Pacific and South Atlantic, respectively for transatlantic movements (Kohler et Overall, the available tagging data (Seki et al., 1998; Lessa et al., 1999). al., 1998; NMFS, unpublished data). demonstrates that oceanic whitetip However, other information from the Maximum time at liberty was 3.3 years sharks are capable of traveling great South Atlantic suggests the species and the maximum distance traveled was distances in the pelagic environment, likely lives up to ∼20 years old based on 1,225 nautical miles (nmi0 (2,270 but also show a high degree of site observed vertebral ring counts kilometers (km0). These data indicate fidelity in some locations. (Rodrigues et al., 2015). Growth rates movements from the northeastern Gulf (growth coefficient, K) have been of Mexico to the Atlantic Coast of Diet and Feeding estimated similarly for both sexes and Florida, from the Mid-Atlantic Bight to Oceanic whitetip sharks are high range from 0.075—0.099 in the southern Cuba, from the Lesser Antilles trophic-level predators in open ocean Southwest Atlantic to 0.0852–0.103 in west into the central , ecosystems feeding mainly on teleosts the North Pacific (Seki et al., 1998; from east to west along the equatorial and cephalopods (Backus et al., 1956; Lessa et al., 1999; Joung et al., 2016). Atlantic, and from off southern in Bonfil et al., 2008), but studies have also Using life history parameters from the a northeasterly direction. In the reported that they consume sea birds, Southwest Atlantic, Corte´s et al. (2010; Bahamas, oceanic whitetips tagged at marine mammals, other sharks and rays, 2012) estimated productivity of the Cat Island stayed within 500 km of the molluscs, crustaceans, and even garbage oceanic whitetip shark, determined as tagging site for ∼30 days before (Compagno 1984; Corte´s 1999). Backus intrinsic rate of population increase (r), dispersing across 16,422 km2 of the et al., (1956) recorded various fish to be 0.094–0.121 per year (median). western North Atlantic. Maximum species in the stomachs of oceanic Overall, the best available data indicate individual displacement from the whitetip sharks, including blackfin that the oceanic whitetip shark is a long- tagging site ranged from 290–1,940 km , barracuda, and white marlin. lived species (at least 20 years) and can after times at liberty from 30–245 days, Based on the species’ diet, the oceanic be characterized as having relatively with individuals moving to several whitetip has a high trophic level, with low productivity (based on the Food different destinations (e.g., the northern a score of 4.2 out of a maximum 5.0 and Agriculture Organization of the Lesser Antilles, the northern Bahamas, (Corte´s 1999). The available evidence United Nations (FAO) productivity and north of the Windward Passage). also suggests that oceanic whitetip indices for exploited fish species, where Many sharks returned to the Bahamas sharks are opportunistic feeders. In the r < 0.14 is considered low productivity), after ∼150 days and estimated residency Bahamas, large pelagic teleosts (e.g., making them generally vulnerable to times within the Bahamas Exclusive , , and fish) are depletion and potentially slow to Economic Zone (EEZ), were generally abundant and oceanic whitetips are recover from overexploitation. high (mean=68.2 percent of time; anecdotally reported to feed heavily on Howey-Jordan et al., 2013). Oceanic recreationally caught teleosts in this Reproduction whitetip sharks showed similar region. In a recent study of an oceanic Similar to other Carcharhinid species, movement patterns and site fidelity in a whitetip shark aggregation at Cat Island, the oceanic whitetip shark is viviparous tagging study conducted in Brazil. Bahamas, SIA-based Bayesian mixing (i.e., the species produces live young) Although individuals tended to travel model estimates of short-term (near Cat with placental embryonic development. long distances before returning to the Island) diets showed more large pelagic The reproductive cycle is thought to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96307

biennial, giving on alternate years, Auckland, New Zealand. These points from the eastern Atlantic). However, after a lengthy 10–12 month gestation suggest that females may come close to although significant inter-basin period. The number of pups in a litter shore to pup (Clarke et al., 2015b). In population structure was evident, it was ranges from 1 to 14 (mean = 6), and a the southwestern Indian Ocean, oceanic associated with deep phylogeographic positive correlation between female size whitetip sharks appear to mate and give mixing of mitochondrial haplotypes and and number of pups per litter has been birth in the early summer. The locations evidence of contemporary migration observed, with larger sharks producing of the nursery grounds are not well between the western Atlantic and Indo- more offspring (Compagno 1984; Seki et known but they are thought to be in Pacific Oceans (Ruck 2016). al., 1998; Bonfil et al., 2008; IOTC oceanic areas. As noted previously, although Ruck (2016) did not initially detect fine-scale 2015a). Age and length of maturity Population Structure and Genetics estimates are slightly different matrilineal structure within ocean depending on geographic location. For To date, only two studies have been basins, after comparing and analyzing example, in the Southwest Atlantic, age conducted on the genetics and the genetic samples of the two studies and length of maturity in oceanic population structure of the oceanic together (i.e., samples from Camargo et whitetips was estimated to be 6–7 years whitetip shark, which suggest there may al., 2016 and samples from Ruck 2016), and 180–190 cm TL, respectively, for be some genetic differentiation between Ruck (Unpublished data) detected both sexes (Lessa et al., 1999). In the various populations of the species. The significant maternal population North Pacific, there are two different first study (Camargo et al., 2016) structure within the western Atlantic estimates for age and length of maturity. compared the mitochondrial control that provides evidence of three Seki et al., (1998) estimated that females region (mtCR) in 215 individuals from matrilineal lineages in the western reach sexual maturity at approximately the Indian Ocean and eastern and Atlantic. However, the data showing 168–196 cm TL, and males at 175–189 western . While results population structure within the Atlantic cm TL, which corresponds to ages of 4 showed significant genetic relies solely on mitochondrial DNA and and 5 years, respectively (Seki et al., differentiation (based on haplotype does not reflect male mediated gene 1998). However, more recently Joung et frequencies) between the eastern and flow. Thus, while the current (albeit al. (2016) determined a later age of western Atlantic Ocean (FST = 0.1039, unpublished) data supports three maturity in the North Pacific, with P <0.001; Camargo et al., 2016), pairwise maternal populations within the females reaching maturity at 190 cm TL comparisons among populations within Atlantic, this data is preliminary and the regions revealed a complex pattern. (approximately 8.5–8.8 years) and males information regarding male mediated Though some eastern Atlantic reaching maturity at 172 cm TL gene flow would provide an improved populations were significantly (approximately 6.8–8.9 years old). In the understanding of the fine-scale genetic differentiated from western Atlantic Indian Ocean, both males and females structuring of oceanic whitetip in the populations (FST = 0.09¥0.27, P < mature at around 190–200 cm TL (IOTC Atlantic. 0.01), others were not (FST = The best available information 2014). Size at birth also varies slightly 0.02¥0.03, P > 0.01), even after indicates that the oceanic whitetip shark between geographic locations, ranging excluding populations with sample has relatively low genetic diversity. from 55 to 75 cm TL in the North sizes of less than 10 individuals Compared to eight other circumtropical Pacific, around 65–75 cm TL in the (Camargo et al., 2016). Additionally, the elasmobranch species, including the northwestern Atlantic, and 60–65 cm TL sample size from the Indian Ocean (N = basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), off South Africa, with reproductive 9) may be inadequate to detect (Sphyrna seasons thought to occur from late statistically significant genetic structure zygaena), (Sphyrna spring to summer (Bonfil et al., 2008; between this and other regions mokarran), ( Compagno 1984). (Camargo et al., 2016). Furthermore, cuvier), Tropical Pacific records of pregnant since this study only used (Carcharhinus limbatus), females and newborns are concentrated mitochondrial markers, male mediated (Carcharhinus plumbeus), silky shark between 20° N and the equator, from gene flow is not reflected. (Carcharhinus falciformis), and the 170° E to 140° W. In the Atlantic, young In the second study, Ruck (2016) whale shark (Rhincodon typus), the oceanic whitetip sharks have been compared the mitochondrial control oceanic whitetip shark ranks the fourth found well offshore along the region, a protein-coding mitochondrial lowest in global mtCR genetic diversity southeastern coast of the United States, region, and nine nuclear microsatellite (0.33 percent ± 0.19 percent; Ruck suggesting that there may be a nursery loci in 171 individuals sampled from 2016), with diversity similar to the in oceanic waters over this continental the western Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific smooth hammerhead (0.32 percent ± shelf (Compagno 1984; Bonfil et al., Oceans. Using three population-level 0.18 percent (Testerman 2014) and 2008). In the southwestern Atlantic, the pairwise metrics (PhiST, FST, and Jost’s greater than basking sharks (Hoelzel et prevalence of immature sharks, both D), Ruck (2016) did not detect fine-scale al., 2006). The mtCR genetic diversity of female and male, in fisheries catch data matrilineal structure within ocean the oceanic whitetip is about half that suggests that this area may serve as basins, but mitochondrial and nuclear of the closely related silky shark (0.61 potential nursery habitat for the oceanic analyses indicated weak but significant percent ±0.32 percent; (Clarke et al., whitetip shark (Coelho et al., 2009; differentiation between western Atlantic 2015a)) and about a third that of the Tambourgi et al., 2013; Tolotti et al., and Indo-Pacific Ocean populations whale shark (1.1 percent ± 0.6 percent; 2013; Fre´dou et al., 2015). Juveniles (FST = 0.076, P = 0.0002; FST = 0.017, (Castro et al., 2007). Ruck (2016) noted seem to be concentrated in equatorial P < 0.05 after correction for False that the relatively low mtDNA genetic latitudes, while specimens in other Discovery Rate). Therefore, Ruck (2016) diversity (concatenated mtCR–ND4 maturational stages are more suggests that oceanic whitetip sharks nucleotide diversity p = 0.32 percent widespread (Tambourgi et al., 2013). consist of a minimum of two ±0.17 percent) compared to other Pregnant females are often found close contemporary, distinct genetic circumtropical elasmobranch species to shore, particularly around the populations comprising sharks from the raises potential concern for the future Caribbean Islands. One pregnant female western Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific genetic health of this species. Camargo was found washed ashore near (this study did not have any samples et al., (2016) also observed low levels of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96308 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

genetic variability for the species Distinct Population Segments oceanic whitetip shark, availability of throughout the study area, and noted As described above, the ESA’s data, and types of threats, the ERA team that these low genetic variability rates definition of ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any decided that the foreseeable future may represent a risk to the adaptive subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, should be defined as approximately 3 potential of the species leading to a and any distinct population segment generation times for the oceanic weaker ability to respond to (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or whitetip shark, or approximately 30 environmental changes (Camargo et al. wildlife which interbreeds when years. A generation time is defined as 2016). mature.’’ As stated in the joint DPS the time it takes, on average, for a sexually mature female oceanic whitetip Current Status policy, Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would shark to be replaced by offspring with Oceanic whitetip sharks can be found exercise authority with regard to DPSs the same spawning capacity. This worldwide, with no present indication sparingly and only when the biological timeframe (3 generation times) takes of a range contraction. Although evidence indicates such action is into account the time necessary to generally not targeted, they are warranted. NMFS determined at the 90- provide for the conservation and frequently caught as bycatch in many day finding stage that the petition to list recovery of the species. As a late- global fisheries, including pelagic the global species of oceanic whitetip maturing species, with slow growth rate longline (PLL) fisheries targeting tuna shark was warranted. As such, we and relatively low productivity, it would likely take more than a and swordfish, purse seine, gillnet, and conducted the extinction risk analysis generation time for any conservative artisanal fisheries. Oceanic whitetip on the global oceanic whitetip shark management action to be realized and sharks are also a preferred species for population. reflected in population abundance their large, morphologically distinct Assessment of Extinction Risk indices. In addition, the foreseeable fins, as they obtain a high price in the future timeframe is also a function of Asian fin market, and thus they are The ESA (section 3) defines an the reliability of available data regarding valuable as incidental catch for the endangered species as ‘‘any species the identified threats and extends only international shark fin trade. which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of as far as the data allow for making In 2006, the International Union for its range.’’ A threatened species is reasonable predictions about the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defined as ‘‘any species which is likely species’ response to those threats. Since classified the oceanic whitetip shark as to become an endangered species within the main threats to the species were Vulnerable globally based on an the foreseeable future throughout all or identified as fisheries and the assessment by Baum et al., (2006) and a significant portion of its range.’’ inadequacy of existing regulatory its own criteria (A2ad+3d+4ad), and Neither we nor the USFWS have measures that manage these fisheries, placed the species on its ‘‘Red List.’’ developed formal policy guidance about the ERA team felt that they had the Under criteria A2ad, 3d and 4ad, a how to interpret the definitions of background knowledge in fisheries species may be classified as Vulnerable threatened and endangered with respect management and expertise to when its ‘‘observed, estimated, inferred to what it means to be ‘‘in danger of confidently predict the impact of these or suspected’’ population size is extinction.’’ We consider the best threats on the biological status of the reduced by 30 percent or more over the available information and apply species within this timeframe. last 10 years, the next 10 years, or any professional judgment in evaluating the The ability to measure or document 10-year time period, or over a 3- level of risk faced by a species in risk factors to a marine species is often generation period, whichever is the deciding whether the species is limited, where quantitative estimates of longer, where the reduction or its causes threatened or endangered. We evaluate abundance and life history information may not have ceased or may not be both demographic risks, such as low are often lacking altogether. Therefore, understood or may not be reversible, abundance and productivity, and threats in assessing extinction risk of a data based on a direct observation and actual to the species, including those related to limited species, it is important to or potential levels of exploitation. The the factors specified in ESA section include both qualitative and IUCN’s justification for the 4(a)(1)(A)–(E). quantitative information. In assessing categorization is based on the species’ extinction risk to the oceanic whitetip declining populations. The IUCN notes Methods shark, the ERA team considered the that the species’ regional trends, slow As we described previously, we demographic viability factors developed life history characteristics (hence low convened an ERA team to evaluate by McElhany et al., (2000) and the risk capacity to recover from moderate levels extinction risk to the species. This matrix approach developed by of exploitation), and high levels of section discusses the methods used to Wainwright and Kope (1999) to organize largely unmanaged and unreported evaluate threats and the overall and summarize extinction risk mortality in target and bycatch fisheries, extinction risk to the oceanic whitetip considerations. The approach of give cause to suspect that the shark. For purposes of the risk considering demographic risk factors to population has decreased by over 30 assessment, an ERA team comprised of help frame the consideration of percent and meets the criteria to be fishery biologists and shark experts was extinction risk has been used in many categorized as Vulnerable globally. As a convened to review the best available of our status reviews (see http:// note, the IUCN classification for the information on the species and evaluate www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links oceanic whitetip shark alone does not the overall risk of extinction facing the to these reviews). In this approach, the provide the rationale for a listing oceanic whitetip shark, now and in the collective condition of individual recommendation under the ESA, but the foreseeable future. The term populations is considered at the species classification and the sources of ‘‘foreseeable future’’ was defined as the level according to four demographic information that the classification is timeframe over which threats could be viability factors: Abundance, growth based upon are evaluated in light of the reliably predicted to impact the rate/productivity, spatial structure/ standards on extinction risk and biological status of the species. After connectivity, and diversity. These impacts or threats to the species. considering the life history of the viability factors reflect concepts that are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96309

well-founded in conservation biology species or DPS with a high risk of abundance trends of the species. Given and that individually and collectively extinction is at or near a level of the available data, and the fact that the provide strong indicators of extinction abundance, productivity, spatial available assessments were not risk. structure, and/or diversity that places its conducted prior to the advent of Using these concepts, the ERA team continued persistence in question. The industrial fishing (and thus not from evaluated demographic risks by demographics of a species or DPS at virgin biomass), the exact magnitude of assigning a risk score to each of the four such a high level of risk may be highly the declines and current abundance of demographic risk factors. The scoring uncertain and strongly influenced by the global population are unknown. for these demographic risk criteria stochastic or depensatory processes. However, based on the best available correspond to the following values: 0— Similarly, a species or DPS may be at scientific and commercial data, the ERA unknown risk, 1—low risk, 2—moderate high risk of extinction if it faces clear team concluded, and we agree, that risk, and 3—high risk. Detailed and present threats (e.g., confinement to while the oceanic whitetip shark was definitions of the risk scores can be a small geographic area; imminent historically one of the most abundant found in the status review report. destruction, modification, or and ubiquitous shark species in tropical The ERA team also performed a curtailment of its habitat; or disease seas around the world, numerous lines threats assessment for the oceanic epidemic) that are likely to create of evidence suggest the species has not whitetip shark by evaluating the effect present and substantial demographic only undergone significant historical that the threat was currently having on risks. The ERA team adopted the declines throughout its range, but likely the extinction risk of the species. The ‘‘likelihood point’’ (FEMAT) method for continues to experience abundance levels included ‘‘unknown,’’ ‘‘low,’’ ranking the overall risk of extinction to declines of varying magnitude globally. ‘‘moderate,’’ and ‘‘high.’’ The scores allow individuals to express Across the Pacific Ocean, several lines were then tallied and summarized for uncertainty. For this approach, each of evidence indicate significant and each threat. It should be emphasized team member distributed 10 ‘‘likelihood ongoing population declines of the that this exercise was simply a tool to points’’ among the extinction risk levels. oceanic whitetip shark. In the eastern help the ERA team members organize This approach has been used in Pacific Ocean (EPO), the oceanic the information and assist in their previous NMFS status reviews (e.g., whitetip shark was historically the third thought processes for determining the Pacific salmon, Southern Resident killer most abundant shark species after blue overall risk of extinction for the oceanic whale, Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific sharks (Prionace glauca) and silky whitetip shark. , and black abalone) to structure sharks (C. falciformis). The oceanic Guided by the results from the the team’s thinking and express levels of whitetip comprised approximately 20 demographic risk analysis and the uncertainty when assigning risk percent of the total shark catch in the threats assessment, the ERA team categories. Although this process helps tropical tuna purse seine fishery from members were asked to use their to integrate and summarize a large 2000–2001 (Roman-Verdesoto and informed professional judgment to make amount of diverse information, there is Orozco-Zoller 2005) and averaged 9 an overall extinction risk determination percent of the total shark catch from for the oceanic whitetip shark. For this no simple way to translate the risk matrix scores directly into a 1993–2009 (with silky sharks analysis, the ERA team considered three comprising 84 percent, the hammerhead levels of extinction risk: 1—low risk, determination of overall extinction risk. Other descriptive statistics, such as complex comprising 5 percent, and 2—moderate risk, and 3—high risk, other sharks comprising 2 percent; Hall mean, variance, and standard deviation, which are all temporally connected. and Roma´n 2013). However, if only the were not calculated, as the ERA team Detailed definitions of these risk levels more recent period from 2005–2009 is felt these metrics would add artificial are as follows: 1 = Low risk: A species considered, then the proportion of silky precision to the results. The scores were or DPS is at low risk of extinction if it sharks is 93 percent, followed by the is not at a moderate or high level of then tallied and summarized. Finally, the ERA team did not make scalloped (1.6 extinction risk (see ‘‘Moderate risk’’ and percent), and the smooth hammerhead ‘‘High risk’’ below). A species or DPS recommendations as to whether the species should be listed as threatened or shark (1.5 percent). The changes are the may be at a low risk of extinction if it result of a rapid decline in oceanic endangered. Rather, the ERA team drew is not facing threats that result in whitetip sharks (Hall and Roma´n 2013). scientific conclusions about the overall declining trends in abundance, Data for the oceanic whitetip shark in risk of extinction faced by the oceanic productivity, spatial structure, or the EPO is available from the Inter- whitetip shark under present conditions diversity. A species or DPS at low risk American Tropical Tuna Commission and in the foreseeable future based on of extinction is likely to show stable or (IATTC), the Regional Fishery an evaluation of the species’ increasing trends in abundance and Management Organization (RFMO) demographic risks and assessment of productivity with connected, diverse responsible for the conservation and threats. populations; 2 = Moderate risk: A management of tuna and tuna-like species or DPS is at moderate risk of Evaluation of Demographic Risks species in the IATTC Convention Area. extinction if it is on a trajectory that The IATTC Convention Area is defined Abundance puts it at a high level of extinction risk as waters of the EPO within the area in the foreseeable future (see description While a global population size bounded by the west coast of the of ‘‘High risk’’). A species or DPS may estimate or trend for the oceanic Americas and by 50° N. latitude, 150° be at moderate risk of extinction due to whitetip shark is currently unavailable, W. longitude, and 50° S. latitude. projected threats or declining trends in numerous sources of information, Nominal catch data from the IATTC abundance, productivity, spatial including the results of a recent stock shows that purse seine sets on floating structure, or diversity. The appropriate assessment and several other abundance objects, unassociated sets and dolphin time horizon for evaluating whether a indices (e.g., trends in occurrence and sets all show decreasing trends of species or DPS is more likely than not composition in fisheries catch data, oceanic whitetip shark since 1994 to be at high risk in the foreseeable catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), and (IATTC 2007). In particular, presence of future depends on various case- and biological indicators) were available to oceanic whitetip sharks on sets with species-specific factors; 3 = High risk: A infer and assess current regional floating objects, which are responsible

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96310 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

for 90 percent of the shark catches in the abundance indices, including (2004) were challenged on the basis of EPO purse seine fishery, has declined standardized CPUE, concluded that the whether correct inferences were made significantly (Hall and Roma´n 2013). oceanic whitetip shark continues to regarding the magnitude of shark Based on nominal catches per set as decline throughout the tropical waters population declines in the Atlantic (see well as the frequency of occurrence of of the Western and Central Pacific (Rice discussions in Burgess et al., (2005b) oceanic whitetip sharks in floating et al., 2015), indicating a severely and Burgess et al., (2005a)). Of object sets, the species has practically depleted population of oceanic whitetip particular relevance to the oceanic disappeared from the fishing grounds, shark across the region with whitetip, Burgess et al., (2005b) noted with a seemingly north to south observations of the species becoming that the change from steel to progression. Similar trends are also seen increasingly rare. Similar results were monofilament leaders between the in dolphin and school sets. These found in analyses of CPUE data from the 1950s and 1990s could have reduced the declines in nominal CPUE or the Hawaii-based PLL fishery, where catchability of all large sharks, and the frequency of occurrence translates to a oceanic whitetip shark showed a increase in the average depth of sets decline of 80–95 percent from the decline in relative abundance on the during the same period could have population levels in the late 1990s (Hall order of ≥90 percent from 1995–2010 reduced the catchability of the surface- and Roma´n 2013). Although there are (Clarke et al., 2012; Brodziak et al., dwelling oceanic whitetip (FAO 2012). various potential reasons for such 2013). It must be recognized that the Later, Driggers et al., (2011) conducted reductions, including changes in fishing closeness of the agreement between the a study on the effects of different leader areas or methods, higher utilization trends in observer data from Hawaii and materials on the CPUE of oceanic sharks rates, or some combination of factors, the observer data from the SPC for the and determined that with equivalent the increasing rarity of this species in entire Western and Central Pacific methods but using a wire leader, the EPO purse seine sets likely tracks Ocean may be partly due to the use of catch rates of Baum and Myers (2004) closely with their relative abundance datasets that partially overlap for years for the recent period would have been (Hall and Roma´n 2016). prior to 2005. Still, even after 2005, the 0.55 rather than 0.02 (as estimated by Similar levels of decline have also trends show similar results suggesting Baum and Myers (2004) using nylon been observed across the Western and that the patterns are representative of leaders). Comparing the recent 0.55 Central Pacific Ocean. Like the eastern regional trends in oceanic whitetip value with the Baum et al. (2003) value Pacific, the oceanic whitetip shark was abundance. A preliminary update of the of 4.62 for the 1950s gave an estimated once one of the most abundant pelagic Brodziak et al. (2013) study with 4 extent of decline of 88 percent (FAO shark species throughout the tropical additional years of data (2011–2014) 2012). In a re-analysis of the same waters of the region. For example, tuna indicates a potential relative stability in logbook dataset analyzed by Baum et al. longline survey data from the 1950s the population size at a post-decline (2003) for the Northwest Atlantic using indicate oceanic whitetip sharks depressed state (Young et al., 2016). a similar methodology, Corte´s et al., comprised 28 percent of the total shark Nonetheless, the ERA team concluded, (2007) reported a 57 percent decline catch of fisheries south of 10° N. and we agree, that the levels of from 1992–2005. The decline was (Strasburg 1958). Likewise, Japanese significant and ongoing population largely driven by a 37 percent decline research longline records during 1967– decline observed in these studies from 1992 to 1993 and a subsequent 1968 indicate that oceanic whitetip indicate that these declines are not just decline of 53 percent from 1997 to 2000, sharks were among the most common local or regional, but rather a Pacific- after which the time series remained shark species taken by tuna vessels in wide phenomenon, with no significant stable (2000–2005). However, an tropical seas of the Western and Central indication that these trends have analysis of the observer dataset from the Pacific, and comprised 22.5 percent and reversed. same fishery resulted in a less 23.5 percent of the total shark catch In the Northwest Atlantic, the oceanic pronounced decline than that of the west and east of the International Date whitetip shark was described logbook analysis, with a 9 percent Line, respectively (Taniuchi 1990). historically as widespread, abundant, decline in abundance from the same However, numerous sources of and the most common pelagic shark in period of 1992–2005. Finally, the ERA information indicate significant and the warm parts of the North Atlantic team conducted an updated analysis ongoing abundance declines of oceanic (Backus et al., 1956). Several studies (1992–2015) using the same observer whitetip sharks in this region. For have been conducted to determine data analyzed by Corte´s et al. (2007). example, a recent stock assessment trends in abundance of various shark Similar to previous analyses, there was conducted in the Western and Central species, including the oceanic whitetip high variability in the initial years of the Pacific, based on observer data from the shark. Baum et al., (2003) analyzed time series, but overall, the analysis Secretariat of the Pacific Community logbook data for the U.S. PLL fleets conducted by the ERA team showed ∼4 (SPC), estimated an 86 percent decline targeting swordfish and tunas, and percent decline over the time series, in spawning biomass from 1995 to 2009, reported a 70 percent decline in relative with the overall trend indicative that the with total biomass reduced to just 6.6 abundance for the oceanic whitetip population may have stabilized (Young percent of the theoretical equilibrium shark from 1992 to 2000. Similarly, et al. 2016). Although observer data are virgin biomass (i.e., a total decline of Baum and Myers (2004) compared generally regarded as more reliable than 93.4 percent; Rice and Harley 2012). longline CPUE from research surveys logbook data for non-target shark Based on the results from the oceanic from 1954–1957 to observed commercial species (Walsh et al., 2002), it should be whitetip stock assessment, the median longline sets from 1995–1999, and noted that the sample size of oceanic estimate of oceanic whitetip biomass in determined that the oceanic whitetip whitetip shark in the observer data was the Western Central Pacific as of 2010 had declined by more than 150-fold, or substantially smaller than for other was 7,295 tons (Rice and Harley 2012), 99.3 percent (95 percent; Confidence species, and thus the trends estimated which would be equivalent to a Interval (CI): 98.3–99.8 percent) in the should be regarded with caution. population of roughly 200,000 Gulf of Mexico during that time. Additionally, although misreporting and individuals (FAO 2012). An updated However, the methods and results of species misidentification are likely to be assessment analyzing various Baum et al. (2003) and Baum and Myers much more prevalent in logbooks,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96311

which can obscure abundance trends, 1990s. Further, demographic analyses whitetip in this area may be the result misidentification is not considered an from the largest oceanic whitetip shark of the species’ tendency to remain in issue for the oceanic whitetip, whereas catching country in the South Atlantic warmer, tropical waters farther north. it is more problematic for other species (i.e., Brazil) indicate abundance Alternatively, it could be a result of such as and other declines similar to the Northwest historical fishing pressure in the region. Carcharhinus species. It should also be Atlantic of 50–79 percent in recent Finally, in a study that synthesized noted that fishing pressure on the decades (Santana et al., 2004; ICMBio information on shark catch rates (based oceanic whitetip shark began decades 2014) and coincide with significant on 871,177 sharks caught on 86,492 prior to the time series covered in these declines in catches of oceanic whitetip longline sets) for the major species studies (with the exception of the Baum shark reported by Brazil to the caught by multiple fleets in the South and Myers (2004) study), thus the International Commission for the Atlantic between 1979 and 2011, catch percentage declines discussed here do Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). rates of most species (with the exception not represent percentage declines from As a result of these declining trends, the of P. glauca and A. superciliosus), historical virgin biomass. Therefore, oceanic whitetip shark was designated including oceanic whitetip, declined by given all of the caveats and limitations as a ‘‘species threatened by more than 85 percent (Barreto et al., of the studies and analyses discussed overexploitation’’ in 2004 by Brazil’s 2015). However, it should be noted that above, it is likely that the oceanic Ministe´rio do Meio Ambiente (Ministry there are some caveats and limitations whitetip shark population in the of Environment), and listed under to this study, including high and Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Annex II of Brazil’s Normative Ruling overlapping confidence intervals, experienced significant historical No. 5 of May 21, 2004 that recognizes raising the possibility that the trends declines; however, relative abundance endangered species and species may be noise rather than truly tracking of oceanic whitetip shark may have threatened by overexploitation, abundance. Nonetheless, while robust stabilized in the Northwest Atlantic including aquatic invertebrates and fish. abundance data is lacking in the South since 2000 and in the Gulf of Mexico/ In 2014, Brazil finalized its national Atlantic, the best available information, Caribbean since the late 1990s at a assessment regarding the extinction risk including demographic analyses and significantly diminished abundance of Brazilian fauna, and listed the fisheries data across the region from (Corte´s et al. 2007; Young et al. 2016). oceanic whitetip shark as Vulnerable 1979–2011, indicate the oceanic whitetip shark has potentially In other areas of the oceanic whitetip under Brazil’s ‘‘Lista Nacional Oficial de Espe´cies da Fauna Ameac¸adas de experienced a significant population shark range, robust and reliable decline ranging from 50–85 percent quantitative abundance data are limited Extinc¸a˜o—Peixes e Invertebrados Aqua´ticos’’ (National Official List of (Santana et al. 2004; ICMBio 2014; or lacking altogether. In the South Barreto et al. 2015). Overall, the ERA Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip has been Endangered Species of Fauna—Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate; ICMBio 2014). team concluded, and we agree, that the characterized as one of the most oceanic whitetip population in the abundant species of pelagic shark in the Elsewhere across the South Atlantic, South Atlantic has likely experienced southwestern and equatorial region. For the oceanic whitetip shark appears to be historical declines similar to levels seen example, the oceanic whitetip was the relatively rare, with low patchy in the Northwest Atlantic, and this third most commonly caught shark out abundance. For example, in 6 years of population decline is likely ongoing, of 33 shark species caught year-round in observer data from the Uruguayan although we acknowledge some the prominent Brazilian Santos longline longline fleet (1998–2003), catches of uncertainty regarding the available data fishery, and one of 7 species that oceanic whitetip shark were described from this region. comprised >5 percent of total shark as ‘‘occasional’’ with CPUE rates of only Abundance information from the catches from 1971–1995 (Amorim 1998). 0.006 individuals/1,000 hooks Indian Ocean is relatively deficient and In Itajai, southern Brazil, oceanic (Domingo 2004). However, during this unreliable. Nonetheless, historical whitetip sharks were considered study, the Uruguayan longline fleet research data shows overall declines in ‘‘abundant’’ and ‘‘frequent’’ in the operated between latitudes 26° and 37° both CPUE and mean weight of oceanic surface longline and gillnet fleets, S. and within sea surface temperatures whitetip sharks (Romanov et al., 2008), respectively, from 1994–1999 ranging between 16° and 23 °C, which and anecdotal reports suggest that (Mazzoleni and Schwingel 1999). are largely lower than the temperature oceanic whitetips have become rare Likewise, in equatorial waters off the preferences of the species. Domingo throughout much of the Indian Ocean northeastern coast of Brazil, the oceanic (2004) noted that it is unknown whether over the past 20 years (IOTC 2015a). The whitetip shark was historically reported the species has always occurred in low Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) as the second most abundant numbers in this region of the South also reports that despite limited data, elasmobranch species, outnumbered Atlantic, or whether the population has oceanic whitetip shark abundance has only by the (P. glauca), in been affected significantly by fishing likely declined significantly over recent research surveys conducted within the effort. More recently, Domingo et al. decades. Furthermore, a few EEZ of Brazil, and comprised 29 percent (2007) found similar results, with the quantitative studies provide some of the total elasmobranch catch in the highest CPUE recorded not exceeding additional information indicative of 1990s (Lessa et al., 1999). From 1992– 0.491 individuals/1,000 hooks. In total, declining trends of oceanic whitetip in 2002, oceanic whitetip CPUE in this only 63 oceanic whitetips were caught the Indian Ocean. For example, data area averaged 2.18 individuals/1,000 on 2,279,169 hooks and 63 percent were from an exploratory fishing survey for hooks (Domingo et al., 2007); more juveniles. All catches occurred in sets large pelagic species conducted off the recently, however, the average CPUE with sea surface temperatures ≥22.5 °C eastern seaboard of the from recorded in this same area from 2004– (Domingo et al., 2007). Again, this data 1987–1988 reported that oceanic 2010 of 0.1–0.3 individuals/1,000 hooks does not indicate whether a decline in whitetips represented 29 percent of the (Fre´dou et al., 2015) is much lower. the population has occurred, rather, it sharks caught by longline and 10 Additionally, none of the other areas clearly reflects the low abundance of the percent of the sharks caught by gillnet within this region exhibit CPUE rates species in this area (Domingo et al., in all fishing zones (Anderson and comparable to the rates seen in the 2007). The low abundance of oceanic Waheed 1990). During this survey, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96312 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

average CPUE for all sharks was 48.7 in the eastern Arabian Sea, the (Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012); however, it sharks/1,000 hooks. Applying the percentage of oceanic whitetip sharks in should be noted that due to the high percentage of oceanic whitetips in the the overall shark catch also declined variability of the standardized catch catch to the total CPUE, it is estimated slightly from 0.6 percent to 0.45 percent. rates between consecutive years and that the CPUE of oceanic whitetip in Overall, Varghese et al. (2015) shows limited availability of specimens in this period was about 1.41 individuals/ that the index of relative abundance of some years, this index could be 100 hooks (FAO 2012). More recently, sharks was considerably lower than that representative of a particular period Anderson et al. (2011) estimated that found in earlier studies, indicating a rather than a plausible indicator of the the average CPUE of oceanic whitetip in decline in abundance over the years. stock abundance at large (Ramos- the shark longline fishery was only 0.20 While the lack of standardized CPUE Cartelle et al., 2012). Specifically, the individuals per fishing vessel (or trend information for oceanic whitetip data yielded support for the relatively approximately 0.14 sharks/100 hooks), in these studies makes it difficult to low prevalence described for this and estimated the species contributed evaluate the potential changes in species in the commercial fishery of only 3.5 percent of the shark landings. abundance for this species in this surface longline fleets targeting This would represent a 90 percent region, based on the best available swordfish in waters with temperatures decline in abundance between 1987– information, it is likely that the oceanic generally lower than those selected by 1988 and 2000–2004. Such a level of whitetip has experienced some level of this species as its preferred habitat decline would be consistent with the population decline in this region. (Garcı´a-Corte´s et al., 2012; Ramos- decrease in the proportion of oceanic Additionally, it is important to note that Cartelle et al., 2012). whitetip in the catch (from 29 percent India has objected to IOTC Resolution Finally, a study that incorporated data of longline shark catch in 1987–1988 to 13–06, which prohibits the retention of from the tropical French and Soviet just 3.5 percent of landings in 2000– oceanic whitetip sharks (since 2013) in Union purse seine fisheries analyzed the 2004) and also with anecdotal IOTC managed fisheries, and thus this interaction between oceanic whitetip information reporting a marked decrease Resolution is not binding on India. sharks and the tropical purse seine in sightings of oceanic whitetip sharks Therefore, oceanic whitetip sharks may fisheries in terms of occurrence per set off northern and central Maldives still be retained in Indian fisheries. (not taking into account the number of (Anderson et al., 2011; FAO 2012). The Other studies on the abundance individuals caught per set) from the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and trends of oceanic whitetip shark in the mid-1980s to 2014. Results showed a Bycatch (WPEB) noted the following on Indian Ocean, including analyses of marked change in the proportion of fish the aforementioned studies: ‘‘Data standardized CPUE indices from aggregating device (FAD) sets with collected on shark abundance represents Japanese and Spanish longline fisheries, oceanic whitetips present, fluctuating a consistent time series for the periods also indicate potential population around 20 percent in the mid-1980s and 1987–1988 and 2000–2004, collected declines, although trends are 1990s, and then dropping to less than 10 with similar longline gear, and that the conflicting. Two studies estimate percent from 2005 onwards. Taking into data was showing a declining trend in standardized CPUE for oceanic whitetip account that the number of FADs has oceanic whitetip shark abundance, shark in the Japanese longline fleet greatly increased since the 1990s which is a potential indicator of overall operating in the Indian Ocean (Semba (Dagorn et al., 2013; Maufroy et al., stock depletion.’’ The WPEB further and Yokawa 2011; Yokawa and Semba 2015; Tolotti et al., 2015b), the change 2012). In the first 2011 study, CPUE in the proportion of FADs with oceanic noted that it could be related to reached its peak in 2003 and then whitetip sharks by more than 50 percent localized effects, although this was showed a gradually decreasing trend could indicate an important population deemed unlikely as oceanic whitetip thereafter. Prior to 2003, large decline (Tolotti et al., 2015b). sharks are wide-ranging and abundance fluctuations in oceanic whitetip CPUE Alternatively, the decline of oceanic trends from long-term research are attributed to changes in reporting whitetip shark occurrence per FAD conducted by the former Soviet Union requirements rather than the actual could be the result of a sharp increase between the 1960s and 1980s indicate a trend of the stock, as those years of FAD densities combined with a small similar decline of oceanic whitetip represent the introduction phase of a and stable population size. In this sharks, and that ‘‘sightings of this new recording system. The data showed scenario, the proportion of oceanic ´ species in Maldives and Reunion low values in 2000 and 2001 (attributed whitetips/FAD would simply decrease islands is now quite uncommon’’ (IOTC to extremely low catches), and a gradual because there aren’t enough sharks to 2011). decreasing trend from 2003 to 2009. The aggregate around that many FADs. Similarly, surveys of the tuna longline authors interpreted a 40 percent decline However, although the analyzed data fishery in India indicate a likely decline in CPUE as an indication of a decrease does not provide a straightforward of oceanic whitetip shark abundance. In in abundance of the population (FAO interpretation (as both hypotheses seem Andaman and Nicobar waters, where 2012; Semba and Yokawa 2011). plausible), given the declines indicated catches of sharks are prominent and Yokawa and Semba (2012) updated the in other studies throughout the Indian contribute 35.15 percent of the catch by data to 2011 using a modified data Ocean, it seems more plausible that the number and 51.46 percent by weight, filtering method, which produced a marked decline observed in Tolotti et al. John and Varghese (2009) reported that rather similar and somewhat flattened (2015b) is indicative of a declining the oceanic whitetip shark comprised trend. abundance trend rather than a small, 4.6 percent of the total shark catch from Standardized CPUE of the Spanish stable population. 1984–2006. However, in more recent longline fishery from 1998 to 2011 Despite the varying magnitudes of surveys, Varghese et al., (2015) report showed large historical fluctuations and reported declines of oceanic whitetip that oceanic whitetip shark comprised a general decreasing trend of oceanic shark in the Indian Ocean, the ERA only 0.23 percent of the total shark whitetip shark from 1998–2007, team agreed that given the significantly catch from 2004–2010 in this area, followed by an increase thereafter in the high fishing pressure and catches of which is significantly lower than what last 4 years of the time series. Overall, oceanic whitetip shark in the Indian John and Varghese (2009) reported the magnitude of decline in this study Ocean (which are likely severely previously. Off the West Coast of India was estimated to be about 25–30 percent underreported), combined with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96313

species’ high at-vessel mortality rates in while this species may generally be able team noted that the relatively low longlines in this area and the species’ to withstand low to moderate levels of mtDNA genetic diversity of the oceanic low-moderate productivity (see the exploitation, given the high level of whitetip raises potential concern for the Overutilization for Commercial, fishing mortality this species has future genetic health of this species, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational experienced and continues to particularly in concert with steep global Purposes section below for more experience throughout the majority of declines in abundance. Based on the details), it is likely that the species will its range, its life history characteristics fact that exploitation of the oceanic continue to experience population may only provide the species with a whitetip shark began with the onset of declines in this region into the limited ability to compensate. industrial fishing in the 1950s, only foreseeable future. Therefore, based on the best available 5–7 generations of oceanic whitetip Overall, in areas where oceanic information, these life history have passed since the beginning of this whitetip shark data are available, trends characteristics likely pose a risk to this exploitation. Thus, the low genetic from throughout the species’ global species in combination with threats that diversity of oceanic whitetip shark range show large historical declines in reduce its abundance, such as likely reflects historic levels, and the abundance (e.g., Eastern Pacific, overutilization. significant global declines are not yet Western and Central Pacific, Atlantic Spatial Structure/Connectivity reflected genetically (Ruck 2016). The and Indian Oceans). Recent evidence ERA team noted that this may be a cause suggests that most populations are still The oceanic whitetip shark is a for concern in the foreseeable future, experiencing various levels of decline relatively widespread species that may since a species with already relatively due to continued fishing pressure and be comprised of distinct stocks in the low genetic diversity undergoing associated mortality. Further, the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans. The significant levels of exploitation may potential stabilization of the abundance population structure and exchange increase the species’ risk in terms of trends at depleted levels seen in between these stocks is unknown; reduced fitness and evolutionary observer data from the Northwest however, based on genetic information, adaptability to a rapidly changing Atlantic and Hawaiian PLL fisheries telemetry data, and temperature oceanic environment as well as represents a small contingent of the preferences it is unlikely that there is potential extirpations. The ERA team global population. Thus, the best much exchange between populations in also noted that low genetic diversity available scientific and commercial data the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans. does not necessarily equate to a risk of available suggest that the global However, recent genetic data suggests extinction in and of itself for all species; potentially significant population population of oceanic whitetip but, in combination with low levels of structure within the Atlantic, which continues to experience various levels abundance and continued exploitation, may be underpinned by the fact that this of decline throughout the majority of its low genetic diversity may pose a viable species exhibits a high degree of range. risk to the species in the foreseeable philopatry in some locations (i.e., the future. Growth Rate/Productivity species returns to the same site for The ERA team expressed some purposes of breeding or feeding, etc.). Summary of Factors Affecting the concern regarding the effect of the While the population structure observed Oceanic Whitetip Shark oceanic whitetip shark’s growth rate and in the Atlantic, despite no physical or productivity on its risk of extinction. oceanographic barrier, could result in As described above, section 4(a)(1) of Sharks, in general, have lower localized depletions in areas where the ESA and NMFS’ implementing reproductive and growth rates compared fishing pressure is high (e.g., Brazil), regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that to bony . The ERA team noted that habitat characteristics that are important we must determine whether a species is this species has some life history to this species are unknown. The endangered or threatened because of parameters that are typically species is highly mobile, and there is any one or a combination of the advantageous, and some that are likely little known about specific migration following factors: The present or detrimental to the species’ resilience to routes. It is also unknown if there are threatened destruction, modification, or excessive levels of exploitation. For source-sink dynamics at work that may curtailment of its habitat or range; example, in comparison to other shark affect population growth or species’ overutilization for commercial, species, the oceanic whitetip is decline. There is no information on recreational, scientific, or educational relatively productive, with an intrinsic critical source populations to suggest purposes; disease or predation; the rate of population increase (r) of 0.094– spatial structure and/or loss of inadequacy of existing regulatory 0.121 per year (Corte´s 2010; 2012). The connectivity are presently posing mechanisms; or other natural or oceanic whitetip also ranked among the demographic risks to the species. Thus, manmade factors affecting its continued highest in productivity when compared based on the best available information, existence. The ERA team evaluated with other pelagic shark species in there is insufficient information to whether and the extent to which each of terms of its pup production, rebound support the conclusion that spatial the foregoing factors contributed to the potential, potential for population structure and connectivity currently overall extinction risk of the global increase, and for its stochastic growth pose a significant demographic risk to oceanic whitetip shark population. We rate (Chapple and Botsford 2013). this species. summarize information regarding each Although the oceanic whitetip shark has of these threats below according to the a relatively high productivity rate Diversity factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the compared to other sharks, it is still As noted previously in the Population ESA. Available information does not considered low for a fish species (r Structure and Genetics section, recent indicate that destruction, modification <0.14). Additionally, the species has a research suggests the oceanic whitetip or curtailment of the species’ habitat or fairly late age of maturity (∼6–9 years for shark has low genetic diversity (0.33 range, disease or predation, or other females depending on the location), has percent ± 0.19 percent; Ruck 2016), natural or manmade factors are a lengthy gestation period of 9–12 which is about half that of the closely operative threats on this species; months, and only produces an average related silky shark (0.61 percent ± 0.32 therefore, we do not discuss those of 5–6 pups every two years. Thus, percent; Clarke et al., (2015a)). The ERA further here. See Young et al. (2016) for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96314 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

additional discussion of all ESA section international fin trade, incidental observed. Thus, given the continued 4(a)(1) threat categories. bycatch in commercial fisheries increase in fishing effort and expansion (including impacts of at-vessel and post- of the tropical tuna purse seine fleet in Overutilization for Commercial, release mortality), and IUU fishing the Eastern Pacific, fishing pressure and Recreational, Scientific, or Educational activities. associated mortality of oceanic whitetip Purposes In the EPO, the oceanic whitetip shark sharks are expected to continue. Threats to the oceanic whitetip shark is caught on a variety of gear, including Oceanic whitetip sharks are also related to overutilization stem from longline and purse seine gear targeting sometimes a significant component of mortality in commercial fisheries, tunas and swordfish. They are also the bycatch in EPO longline fisheries, largely driven by demand of the believed to be taken in artisanal and are thought to be taken by local international shark fin trade, bycatch- fisheries in many countries around the artisanal fisheries as well. While related mortality, as well as illegal, EPO (IATTC 2007). To date, the IATTC observer data is not available from these unreported, and unregulated (IUU) has not conducted a stock assessment fisheries, some limited information is fishing. The oceanic whitetip shark is for the oceanic whitetip shark. However, available from the various countries that generally not a targeted species, but species-specific catch estimates based fish in these waters. For example, the because of its tendency to remain in the on observer data from the purse seine oceanic whitetip shark was identified as surface mixed layer of the water column fishery are available from the IATTC one of several principal species taken by (0–152 m depth) and in tropical observer database. As noted previously Mexican fisheries targeting pelagic latitudes where fishing pressure is often sharks (Sosa-Nishizaki et al., 2008). in the Demographic Risk Assessment— most concentrated for target species Farther south, the oceanic whitetip Abundance section, the oceanic such as tuna, the species is frequently shark has also been recorded in the whitetip was the second most abundant encountered and suffers high mortality catches of the Ecuadorian artisanal shark in the catches behind the silky rates in numerous fisheries throughout fishery. In an analysis of landings from shark, and comprised approximately 9 its global range. The oceanic whitetip the five principal ports of the percent of the total shark catch from shark is also considered a preferred Ecuadorian artisanal fishery from 2008– 1993–2009 (Hall and Roma´n 2013). In species for the international fin trade 2012, 37.2 mt of oceanic whitetip shark floating object sets, which are because its large, morphologically were recorded out of a total 43,492.6 mt responsible for 90 percent of oceanic distinct fins obtain a high value in the of shark catches (Martinez-Ortiz et al., Asian fin market. The high value and whitetip shark catches, capture 2015). Although limited, this demand for oceanic whitetip fins probability of the species has decreased information confirms that in addition to incentivizes the retention and over time from a high of 30 percent significant fishing pressure by the subsequent finning of oceanic whitetip capture rate per set between 1994 and tropical tuna purse seine fishery, sharks when caught, and thus represents 1998, to less than 5 percent from 2004 oceanic whitetip sharks are taken in the main economic driver for retention to 2008 (Morgan 2014). Estimated longline and artisanal fisheries in and mortality of this species in catches of oceanic whitetip sharks in all unknown quantities. Based on the commercial fisheries throughout its purse seine sets peaked with foregoing information, the ERA team global range. In fact, growth in demand approximately 9,709 individuals caught concluded, and we agree, that from the fin trade during the 1990s in 1999; however, within 10 years overutilization of the oceanic whitetip coincided with a pattern of soaring catches dropped dramatically to an shark is ongoing in this region, with no catches of oceanic whitetip sharks in estimated 379 oceanic whitetip sharks indication that these pressures will numerous fisheries across the globe. caught in 2005. Estimated catches of cease in the foreseeable future. Catches generally peaked from 1995 to oceanic whitetip shark continue to In the Western and Central Pacific 2000 and were followed by precipitous decline in the EPO tropical tuna purse Ocean (WCPO), the oceanic whitetip declines over the next 10 years due to seine fishery, with only 120 individuals shark commonly interacts with both severe overfishing (Hazin et al., 2007; caught in 2015. This drastic decline in longline and purse seine fisheries Lawson 2011; Clarke et al., 2012; oceanic whitetip catches is in stark throughout the region, with at least 20 Hasarangi et al., 2012; Brodziak et al., contrast to catches of the closely related member nations of the Western and 2013; Hall and Roma´n 2013). The silky shark, which have remained Central Pacific Fisheries Commission oceanic whitetip is regularly caught relatively constant over the same time (WCPFC; the RFMO responsible for the incidentally with PLLs, purse seines, period. Further, size trends in this conservation and management of tuna handlines, troll and occasionally pelagic fishery show that small oceanic whitetip and tuna-like species in the region) and even bottom trawls (Compagno sharks <90 cm, which comprised 21.4 recording the species in their fisheries. 1984). In addition to mortality as a percent of the oceanic whitetips As noted previously, the oceanic result of retention and finning in captured in 1993, have been virtually whitetip historically comprised between commercial fisheries, oceanic whitetip eliminated (Hall and Roma´n 2013), 20–28 percent of the total shark catch in sharks experience varying levels of indicating the possibility of recruitment some industrial longline fisheries bycatch-related fishing mortality, failure in the population. During this during the 1950s and 1960s (Strasburg including at-vessel and post-release same time period, there was an increase 1958; Taniuchi 1990). In this region, mortality. Finally, recent reports of in both the total catch of tunas by purse where sharks represent 25 percent of the illegal trafficking of oceanic whitetip seiners that employ drifting FADs and longline fishery catch (Molony 2007), shark fins suggest the species may be the number of FADs deployed (Eddy et more recent observer data show that the heavily impacted by IUU fishing al., 2016; Hall and Roma´n 2016). Over oceanic whitetip shark represented only activities. Therefore, the ERA team the past decade, the total number of 6.3 percent of the total shark catch from assessed the following factors that may FADs deployed per year has continued 1991–2011(with blue shark comprising have contributed or continue to to increase steadily, from about 4,000 in the large majority at ∼80.5 percent; contribute to the historical and ongoing 2005 to almost 15,000 in 2015 (Hall and Lawson 2011). In the purse seine overutilization of the oceanic whitetip Roma´n 2016). The total number of sets fishery, the oceanic whitetip was once shark: Retention and finning in deployed has also continued increasing, the second most common species of commercial fisheries for purposes of the with 2015 being the highest record shark caught as bycatch in the WCPO,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96315

and comprised approximately 4.2 and contain 98 percent of the U.S. National Bycatch Report First percent of the total shark catch from operational-level reported purse seine Edition Update 2 (see 1994–2011 (Lawson 2011). In addition sets and the majority of longline fishing www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/observer-home/ to being caught indirectly as bycatch, effort (Clarke et al., 2011a; Rice et al., first-edition-update-2) the shallow-set observer records indicate that some 2015). The decline in median size of fishery released alive an estimated 91– targeting of oceanic whitetip shark has female oceanic whitetip sharks is 96 percent of all oceanic whitetip sharks occurred historically in the waters near particularly concerning due to the caught from 2011 to 2013. During the Papua New Guinea, and, given the high potential correlation between maternal same time period, the deep-set fishery value of oceanic whitetip fins and low length and litter size, which has been released alive an estimated 78–82 level of observer coverage in the region, documented in the Atlantic and Indian percent of all oceanic whitetip sharks it is likely that targeting has occurred in Oceans (Lessa et al. 1999, Bonfil et al. caught. However, it is unknown how other areas as well (Rice and Harley 2008). While Rice et al. (2015) more many of these sharks survived after 2012). Based on nominal and recently report that trends in oceanic being released. Nonetheless, this standardized catch rates for longline whitetip median length are now stable, particular fishery may be less of a threat and purse seine fisheries, records of the majority of sharks observed are to the oceanic whitetip shark in the oceanic whitetip sharks in both fisheries immature. In fact, 100 percent of foreseeable future. However, across the have become increasingly rare over oceanic whitetips sampled in the purse WCPO as a whole, given the ongoing time, with catches of the species seine fishery have been immature since impacts to the species from significant significantly declining since the late 2000 (Clarke et al., 2012). fishing pressure (with the majority of 1990s (Lawson 2011; Clarke et al., In the U.S. Pacific, the oceanic effort concentrated in the species’ core 2011a). For example, estimated catches whitetip shark is a common bycatch tropical habitat area), including of oceanic whitetip shark in the WCPO species in the Hawaii-based PLL fishery. significant declines in CPUE, biomass, longline fishery suggest that catches This fishery began around 1917, and and size indices, and combined with the peaked in 1998 at ∼249,000 individuals underwent considerable expansion in species’ relatively low-moderate and declined to only ∼53,000 the late 1980s to become the largest productivity, it is likely that overutilization has been and continues individuals in 2009 (Lawson 2011). It fishery in the state (Boggs and Ito 1993). to be an ongoing threat contributing to should be noted that catches by the This fishery currently targets tunas and the extinction risk of the oceanic fleets of Indonesia and the Philippines billfish and is managed under the were not included because neither whitetip shark across the region. auspices of the Western Pacific Fishery The oceanic whitetip shark was also observer nor effort data were available Management Council (WPFMC). From for these fleets. Over the same time once described as the most common 1995–2006, oceanic whitetip sharks pelagic shark throughout the warm- period (from 1995 to 2009) rates of comprised approximately 3 percent of fishing mortality consistently increased, temperate and tropical waters in the the total shark catch (Brodziak et al., Atlantic and beyond the continental driven mainly by the increased effort in 2013). Based on observer data from the the longline fleet, and remained shelf in the Gulf of Mexico (Mather and Pacific Islands Regional Observer Day 1954; Strasburg 1958). Oceanic substantially above the maximum Program (PIROP), oceanic whitetip sustainable yield (MSY) (i.e., the point whitetip sharks are taken in the Atlantic shark mean annual nominal CPUE Ocean by longlines, purse seine nets, at which there would be an equilibrium) decreased significantly from 0.428 gillnets, trawls, and handlines; however, for the species (Rice et al., 2015). The sharks/1,000 hooks in 1995 to 0.036 the large majority of the catch from previously discussed stock assessment sharks/1,000 hooks in 2010. This 1990–2014 reported to ICCAT was report (Rice et al., 2015) attributed the reflected a significant decrease in caught by longline gear (Young et al., greatest impact on the species to nominal CPUE on longline sets with 2016). Oceanic whitetip sharks have bycatch from the longline fishery, and positive catch from 1.690 sharks/1,000 exhibited a range of at-vessel mortality lesser impacts from target longline hooks to 0.773 sharks/1,000 hooks, and rates in longline gear in the Atlantic activities and purse-seining (Rice and a significant increase in longline sets Ocean between 11–34 percent Harley 2012). In fact, Rice et al. (2015) with zero catches from 74.7 percent in (Beerkircher et al., 2002; Coelho et al., determined that fishing mortality on 1995 to 95.3 percent in 2010. As 2012; Fernandez-Carvalho et al., 2015) oceanic whitetip sharks in the WCPO discussed previously in the Evaluation and have been ranked as the 5th most has increased to levels 6.5 times what is of Demographic Risks—Abundance vulnerable pelagic shark in an sustainable, thus concluding that section, oceanic whitetip CPUE Ecological Risk Assessment that overfishing is still occurring. declined by more than 90 percent in the assessed 11 species of pelagic As a result of continued and Hawaii-based PLL fishery since 1995 elasmobranchs (Cortes et al., 2010). In increasing fishing pressure in the (Walsh and Clarke 2011; Brodziak et al., total, approximately 2,430 mt of oceanic WCPO, size trends for oceanic whitetip 2013). Brodziak et al. (2013) concluded whitetip catches were reported to have also declined, which is indicative that relative abundance of oceanic ICCAT from 1990–2014; however, this is of overutilization of the species. For whitetip declined within a few years of likely a severe underestimation of the example, declining median size trends the expansion of the longline fishery, total amount of oceanic whitetip sharks were observed in all regions and sexes which suggests these fisheries are taken from the Atlantic. For example, in both longline and purse seine contributing to the commercial Clarke (2008) calculated trade-based fisheries until samples became too overutilization of oceanic whitetip estimates that indicate between 80,000– scarce for analysis. These size trends within this portion of its range. It 210,000 oceanic whitetip sharks were were significant for females in the should be noted that while the Hawaii- sourced from the Atlantic Ocean in 2003 longline fishery (Regions 3 and 4; See based PLL fishery currently catches alone to supply the Hong Kong fin Figure 1 in Clarke et al., 2011a for the oceanic whitetip shark as bycatch, the market, which translates to regional map), and for the purse seine majority of individuals are now released approximately 3,000–8,000 mt. fishery (Region 3). Regions 3 and 4 (i.e., alive in this fishery and the number of In the Northwest Atlantic, the oceanic the equatorial region of the WCPO) individuals kept has been on a declining whitetip is caught incidentally as represent the species’ core habitat areas, trend. For example, according to the bycatch by a number of fisheries,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96316 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

including (but not limited to) the U.S. potential efficacy of these management whitetip sharks are taken as bycatch in Atlantic PLL fishery, the Cuban ‘‘sport’’ measures for reducing the threat of numerous fisheries operating in the fishery (‘‘sport’’ = private artisanal and overutilization of the oceanic whitetip South Atlantic, including Brazilian, commercial), and the Colombian shark population in this region; Uruguayan, Taiwanese, Japanese, oceanic industrial longline fishery therefore, under current management Venezuelan, Spanish and Portuguese operating in the Caribbean measures, including the implementation longline fisheries; however, the largest (E-CoP16Prop.42, 2013). In the United of ICCAT Recommendation 10–07 (see oceanic whitetip catching country in States, oceanic whitetip sharks are Factor D—Inadequacy of Existing this region is Brazil. As noted in the caught as bycatch in PLL fisheries Regulatory Mechanisms for more Evaluation of Demographic Risks— targeting tuna and swordfish in this details), the threat of overutilization is Abundance section of this proposed region, with an estimated 8,526 not likely as significant in this area rule, oceanic whitetips were historically individuals recorded as captured in U.S. relative to other portions of the species’ reported as the second-most abundant fisheries logbooks from 1992 to 2000 range. shark in research surveys from (Baum et al., 2003) and a total of 912 In Cuba, some evidence suggests a northeastern Brazil between 1992 and individuals recorded by observers in the historical decline of oceanic whitetip 1997 (FAO 2012), with a high CPUE rate NMFS Pelagic Observer Program from shark may have occurred, although this of 2.18 individuals per 1,000 hooks 1992–2015. Relative to target species, is uncertain. In the 1960s, the oceanic (Domingo et al., 2007). More recently, oceanic whitetip sharks are caught whitetip shark was characterized as the however, average CPUE in this same infrequently and only incidentally on most abundant species off the area has seemingly declined. It also northwestern coast of Cuba, but since PLL vessels fishing for tuna and tuna- appears that the percentage of mature 1985, a substantial decline was observed like species. Landings and dead sharks has declined in recent years in some species, including the oceanic discards of sharks by U.S. PLL fishers in compared to surveys conducted in the whitetip. Variations in fishing effort and the Atlantic are monitored every year 1990s. For example, the frequency of changes in the fishery make it difficult and reported to ICCAT. Overall, very mature sharks ≥180 cm was higher in to assess the present condition of the few oceanic whitetip sharks were the 1990s than in years 2005–2009. It resource, but since 1981 there has been landed by the commercial fishery, should be noted that the data from a tendency towards decline (Claro et al., except for two peaks of about 1,250 and 2005–2009 represents a much larger 2001). Recent monitoring studies of a area of the southwestern and equatorial 1,800 fish in 1983 and 1998, prominent fishing base in Cojimar, Cuba respectively, but otherwise total catches recorded the oceanic whitetip shark Atlantic and has a much larger sample never exceeded 450 fish (NMFS 2009). comprising only 2–5 percent of the size (n = 1218; Tolotti et al., 2013) than Commercial landings of oceanic shark landings from 2008–2011 (Cuba the results from the surveys conducted whitetip sharks in the U.S. Atlantic Department of Fisheries 2016). In in the 1990s (n = 258; Lessa et al., 1999). have been variable, but averaged contrast, Valde´s et al., (2016) show a However, the two study areas do approximately 1,077.4 lb (488.7 kg; steady pattern of abundance for the overlap and provide some indication 0.4887 mt) per year from 2003–2013. oceanic whitetip shark in Cuban fishery that the size composition of oceanic Although oceanic whitetip sharks have landings along the northwestern coast whitetip sharks in the southwestern been prohibited on U.S. Atlantic from 2010 to 2016. However, sharks Atlantic may be shifting downwards. vessels with pelagic caught in Cuban fisheries are never Catches of oceanic whitetip in the longline gear onboard since 2011, they discarded, but rather utilized for either Brazilian tuna longline fishery have also can still be caught as bycatch, caught shown a substantial decline, decreasing human consumption or bait. Cuba is not ∼ with other gears, and are occasionally a member of ICCAT, and thus ICCAT from 640t in 2000 to only 80t in 2005 landed. However, since the ICCAT Recommendation 10–07 on the (Hazin et al., 2007). According to the retention prohibition was implemented retention prohibition of oceanic ICCAT nominal catch database, catches in 2011, estimated commercial landings whitetip sharks is not applicable in of oceanic whitetip shark by Brazilian of oceanic whitetip declined from 1.1 Cuban waters. Further, evidence vessels continued to decline, with 0 mt mt in 2011 to only 0.03 mt in 2013 suggests there is a prevalence of small, reported from 2009–2012 and only 12 (NMFS 2012; 2014). As discussed immature individuals in Cuban catches, mt from 2013–2014. Although robust previously, the oceanic whitetip which suggests the possibility of an standardized CPUE data are not population size has likely declined important nursery area for this species available for the species, making it significantly in this region due to in the region. However, because these difficult to evaluate whether the decline historical exploitation of the species are small and of less value to in catches resulted from decreased since the onset of industrial fishing the fishermen, they are typically using abundance or from changes in (refer back to the Demographic Risk the juvenile C. longimanus as bait while catchability, related, for instance, to Assessment—Abundance section); at sea, a practice which is likely in targeting strategies (Hazin et al., 2007), however, results of the ERA team’s conflict with sustainable fisheries a recent tagging study indicates that the analysis show that the oceanic whitetip management and conservation preferred horizontal and vertical habitat shark population in this region has objectives (Valedz et al., 2016) and may of oceanic whitetip shark, including potentially stabilized since the 1990s/ be contributing to overutilization of the potential nursery areas, is heavily early 2000s (Young et al., 2016). The species. impacted by the industrial longline potential stabilization of oceanic Farther south, it is likely that fishery. Telemetry data provides whitetip sharks occurred concomitantly overutilization is an ongoing threat in evidence that the equatorial region off with the first Federal Fishery the South Atlantic. Although fishing Northeast Brazil is an area where the Management Plan for Sharks in the effort has been high and began oceanic whitetip shark shows a high Northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of intensifying in the southern Atlantic degree of philopatry (i.e., site fidelity). Mexico, which directly manages oceanic Ocean after the 1990s (Camhi et al., This same area also happens to be whitetip shark under the pelagic shark 2008), there is limited information on where the highest level of fishing effort group, and includes regulations on trip the catch rates or trends of oceanic is concentrated. For example, from limits and quotas. This indicates the whitetip sharks in this region. Oceanic 1999–2011, despite a wide distribution

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96317

of fishing sets, the area with the highest Although information from this region implementation of any regulatory effort concentration by the Brazilian is limited and catch data are severely measures, and may therefore be longline fleet was bound by the 5° N. underreported, the IOTC (the RFMO indicative of a population decline in Sri and the 15° S. parallels and by the 040° that manages tuna and tuna-like species Lankan waters as a result of W. and 035° W. meridians (i.e., the in the Indian Ocean and adjacent overutilization. Similarly, the equatorial region of Northeast Brazil). waters) reports that catches of oceanic substantial decline of oceanic whitetip Thus, the majority of fishing effort by whitetip shark are ranked as ‘‘High,’’ sharks in the Maldives, from comprising the Brazilian fleet directly overlaps the meaning the accumulated catches from 29 percent of the longline shark catch in preferred habitat area of oceanic 1950–2010 make up 5 percent or more the 1980s to only 3.5 percent of landings whitetip sharks (Tolotti et al., 2015a). of the total catches of sharks recorded from 2000–2004 (refer back to the Further, many studies show a (Herrera and Pierre 2011). In fact, a Demographic Assessment—Abundance substantially high percentage of recent study estimated that the oceanic section of this proposed rule), is likely juveniles in the catches from this region whitetip shark comprises 11 percent of the result of overutilization of the (Coelho et al., 2009; Tambourgi et al., the total estimated shark catch in the species. In fact, Anderson et al. (2011) 2013; Tolotti et al., 2013; Fre´dou et al., Indian Ocean (Murua et al., 2013a). It is determined that the shark stocks that 2015), which suggests the presence of also ranked as the 5th most vulnerable supported the shark fishery were nursery habitat. For example, shark species caught in longline sequentially overfished, with the Tambourgi et al. (2013) found that 80.5 fisheries in the region (out of 16 species decline in pelagic shark catches the percent of females were immature and assessed) and the most vulnerable shark result of high (and likely unsustainable) 72.4 percent of males were immature in species caught in purse seine gear due levels of fishing by overseas fisheries. the Brazilian pelagic longline fishery to its high susceptibility (Murua et al., The IOTC’s Working Group on between December 2003 and December 2012; IOTC 2015a). Oceanic whitetip Ecosystems and Bycatch stated that at 2010. Thus, it is likely that the intensive sharks also exhibit relatively higher at- current catch levels (i.e., average of 347 fishing pressure of oceanic whitetip vessel mortality rates in longlines in this mt prior to 2013), the Indian Ocean across its preferred vertical and region compared to other regions (i.e., stock of oceanic whitetip was at horizontal habitat, including nursery 58 percent; IOTC 2015a) and likely have considerable risk. Given the previous areas in Brazilian waters, is negatively high mortality rates in purse seine and discussion regarding likely abundance impacting oceanic whitetip sharks at all gillnet fisheries as well. declines in this region, combined with life stages, and contributing to the the high level of fishing pressure on The main fleets catching oceanic oceanic whitetip sharks in the Indian overutilization of the species. In whitetip in the Indian Ocean in recent addition to information from Brazil, a Ocean and the species’ low-moderate years (2011–2014) include: Indonesia, productivity, it is therefore likely that recent study that synthesized Sri Lanka, I.R. Iran, EU (Spain), China, information on shark catch rates for the the substantially high catches of oceanic Madagascar, and Seychelles. The whitetip sharks in the Indian Ocean major shark species caught by multiple reporting of catches of oceanic whitetip fleets in the South Atlantic from 1979 (5,000+ mt estimated for 2013 and 2014) sharks shows an unusual trend in 2013 are in excess of what is sustainable and and 2011 (e.g., Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, and 2014, with 5,000+ mt reported to Canada, Spain, Guyana, Honduras, are likely contributing to overutilization the IOTC. These trends are dominated of the species in the Indian Ocean. Iceland, Japan, Saint Kitts and Nevis, by the Sri Lankan combination longline- Finally, the ERA team determined Korea, Morocco, Panama, Portugal, gillnet fisheries, and an addition of that demand from the international Taiwan, United Kingdom, Uruguay, proportionately very large catches by shark fin trade is the main economic United States, Saint Vincent and the India (IOTC 2015b). Prior to the unusual force driving the retention and Grenadines, and Vanuatu) concluded trend in 2013 and 2014, the trend in subsequent finning of oceanic whitetip that declines of many shark species, oceanic whitetip catch shows a sharks taken as bycatch in commercial including the oceanic whitetip, substantial increase throughout the fisheries worldwide, as they are coincided with significant fishing effort 1990s, which likely corresponds with considered a preferred species for their expansion, a lack of regulatory measures the rise in the shark fin trade (Clarke et fins, command high prices in the to deal with shark bycatch, finning and al., 2007), a peak at 3,050 mt in 1999, international market (U.S. $45–85/kg; directed fishing for sharks by some followed by a sharp and continued E-CoP16Prop.42 (2013)) and make up fleets (Barreto et al., 2015). Based on the decline in the 2000s. Although the IOTC part of the ‘‘first choice’’ category in the foregoing information, the ERA team database is constrained by a number of China, Hong Kong Special concluded, and we agree, that limitations, information from some Administrative Region (SAR) fin market overutilization in the South Atlantic fleets catching oceanic whitetip shark (Vannuccini 1999). From 2000 to 2011, Ocean is likely a threat contributing to indicate declines in catches as well. For China, Hong Kong SAR maintained its the oceanic whitetip’s risk of extinction example, from 1996–2004, landings of position as the world’s largest trader of in the foreseeable future. oceanic whitetip in Sri Lanka peaked at shark fins, controlling the majority of Overutilization is also likely a threat approximately 3,000 mt in 1999 and global trade. In order to determine the to oceanic whitetip sharks in the Indian show a declining trend thereafter species composition of the shark fin Ocean. The oceanic whitetip is reported (Hasarangi et al., 2012) to less than 300 trade, Clarke et al., (2006a) analyzed as bycatch in all three major fisheries mt in 2014. It is only in the last two 1999–2001 Hong Kong trade auction operating in the Indian Ocean; the years (2013 and 2014) that annual shark data in conjunction with species- species is considered ‘‘frequent’’ in both production has seen a significant specific fin weights and genetic longline and purse seine fisheries, and decline in Sri Lanka due to regulatory information to estimate the annual ‘‘very frequent’’ in the gillnet fishery measures (Jayathilaka and Maldeniya number of globally traded shark fins. (Murua et al., 2013b), with gillnet 2015). Most recently, Sri Lanka reported Using this approach, the authors fisheries reporting the highest nominal only 88 mt of oceanic whitetip shark discovered that oceanic whitetip sharks catches of sharks in 2014, and making catches to IOTC in 2015. Thus, the are sold under their own category ‘‘Liu up nearly 40 percent of total catches decline in oceanic whitetip catches in Qiu’’ and represent approximately 1.8 (Ardill et al., 2011; IOTC 2015a). Sri Lanka occurred prior to the percent of the Hong Kong shark fin

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96318 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

market (Clarke et al., 2006a). This level backlash against conspicuous demonstrated, the threat of of oceanic whitetip shark fins in the consumption in China, combined with overutilization of oceanic whitetip trade translates to an estimated median global conservation momentum, appears sharks may be exacerbated by the of 700,000 oceanic whitetip sharks to have had some impact on traded species’ low-moderate productivity (range: 200,000–1,200,000 individuals), volumes as well (Eriksson and Clarke combined with the species’ tendency to with an equivalent median biomass of 2015). Despite the potential remain in the surface mixed layer of the around 21,000 mt (range 9,000–48,000 improvements in the trade, it is clear water column (i.e., 0–152 m) and within mt), traded annually (Clarke et al., that the shark fin trade has asserted and warm, tropical waters where the 2006b). The lack of estimates of the continues to assert significant pressure majority of fishing effort is often most global population makes it difficult to on oceanic whitetip sharks. Given that concentrated. The severity of the threat put these trade-based estimates into oceanic whitetip fins are among the of overutilization is dependent upon perspective. However, given the most prized in the international shark other risks and threats to the species, minimum estimate of ∼9,000 mt traded fin trade and obtain a high value per kg, such as its abundance (as a demographic annually is in excess of the total combined with recent evidence of risk) as well as its level of protection biomass estimated for oceanic whitetip oceanic whitetip fins in several from fishing mortality throughout its for the entire Western and Central prominent markets, the incentive to take range. Given the above analysis and best Pacific Ocean in 2010 (i.e., 7,295 mt), oceanic whitetip sharks for their fins available information, as well as the effect of the removals (for the shark remains high and is an ongoing threat evidence that the species’ current trends fin trade) on the ability of the overall contributing to the overutilization of the in abundance place its future population to sustain this level of species. This is further evidenced by persistence in question due to exploitation is likely substantial. recent incidents of illegal trafficking of overutilization, we find that In more recent years, genetic testing oceanic whitetip fins, which indicate overutilization for commercial purposes conducted in various fish markets that oceanic whitetip sharks are still is a threat that places the species on a provides additional confirmation of the sought after for their fins and continue trajectory towards being in danger of ongoing utilization of oceanic whitetip to experience pressure from demands of extinction in the foreseeable future shark in the shark fin trade. For the fin trade (see Inadequacy of Existing throughout all or a significant portion of example, a genetic sampling study Regulatory Mechanisms section below its range. conducted on shark fins collected from for more details). In addition, a surge in several fish markets throughout Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory the trade of shark meat has occurred in Mechanisms Indonesia determined that oceanic recent years. This could be the result of The ERA team evaluated existing whitetip shark fins were present and a number of factors, but taking the shark regulatory mechanisms to determine comprised approximately 1.72 percent fin and shark meat aggregate trends whether they may be inadequate to of the fins tested (Sembiring et al., together indicate that shark fin supplies address threats to the oceanic whitetip 2015). In a genetic barcoding study of are limited by the existing levels of shark. Existing regulatory mechanisms shark fins from markets in Taiwan, the chondrichthyan capture production, but assessed include federal, state, and oceanic whitetip was 1 of 20 species shark meat is underutilized by international regulations for commercial identified and comprised 0.38 percent international markets (Dent and Clarke of average landings from 2001–2010 fisheries, as well as the international 2015). This suggests that historically trade in shark products. Below is a (Liu et al., 2013). In another genetic underutilized chondrichthyan species barcoding study of fins at the Deira fish description and evaluation of current will be increasingly utilized for their market in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and relevant domestic and international meat. The ERA team considered (with sharks originating from Oman), management measures that may affect whether the recent shift in demand oceanic whitetip shark comprised 0.45 the oceanic whitetip shark. More away from shark fins to shark meat percent of fins tested (Jabado et al., information on these management would have any considerable impact on 2015). Although it is uncertain whether measures can be found in the status the oceanic whitetip shark. Although these studies are representative of the review report (Young et al., 2016) and there are markets for low-value shark entire market within each respective other recent status reviews of other meat such as oceanic whitetip, the country, results of these genetic tests shark species (Miller et al., 2013; 2014). retention bans for the species in all confirm the continued presence of The following section will first discuss oceanic whitetip shark fins in various relevant RFMOs will likely dampen this U.S. domestic regulatory measures markets throughout its range. threat. Thus, the ERA team did not applicable to the oceanic whitetip shark, Recent studies indicate that due to a think this increase in demand for shark followed by international regulations waning interest in fins as well as meat would create a significant new that may affect sharks in general, as well increased regulations to curb shark threat to the species. as the oceanic whitetip shark in finning, the shark fin market is Overall, based on the best available particular. declining. In fact, the trade in shark fins information, the ERA team concluded, through China, Hong Kong SAR, which and we agree, that overutilization is the U.S. Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms has served as an indicator of the global single most important threat In the U.S. Pacific, highly migratory trade for many years, fell by 22 percent contributing to the extinction risk of the species (HMS) fishery management is in 2012. Additionally, current oceanic whitetip shark. Due to the the responsibility of adjacent states and indications are that the shark fin trade paucity of available data from some three regional management councils that through Hong Kong SAR and China will regions, the ERA team acknowledged were established by the Magnuson- continue to contract (Dent and Clarke that there are some uncertainties in Stevens Fishery Conservation and 2015). The pattern of trade decline assessing the contribution of the threat Management Act: The Pacific Fishery closely matches the pattern in of overutilization to the extinction risk Management Council (PFMC), the North chondrichthyan capture production and of the oceanic whitetip shark Pacific Fishery Management Council, thus suggests a strong link between the throughout its range. As results from the and the Western Pacific Fishery quantity harvested and the quantity Corte´s et al. (2012) and Murua et al. Management Council (WPFMC). The traded. However, a government-led (2012) Ecological Risk Assessments PFMC manages highly migratory species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96319

off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, used for commercial fishing for HMS in different shark quota complexes and California; however, the oceanic the Convention Area (PIRO 2015). As annually and will close the fishing whitetip shark is not one of the species noted previously in the Overutilization season for each fishery after 80 percent they actively manage, as its distribution for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, of the respective quota has been landed favors more tropical waters. The PFMC or Educational Purposes section of this or is projected to be landed. Atlantic is, however, actively engaged in proposed rule, oceanic whitetip sharks sharks and shark fins from federally international fishery management are still caught as bycatch in this permitted vessels may be sold only to organizations that manage fish stocks fishery, but the majority of individuals federally permitted dealers. Logbook that migrate through the PFMC’s area of are now released alive. Though post- reporting is required for selected fishers jurisdiction. In 2011, NMFS published a release survival rates are unknown, it is with a federal commercial shark permit. final rule (76 FR 68332) issuing likely these regulations are helping to In addition, fishers may be selected to regulations to implement decisions of reduce overall mortality of the species carry an observer onboard, and some the IATTC, including the Resolution to some degree. fishers are subject to vessel and Prohibiting the Retention of Oceanic In the Northwest Atlantic, the U.S. electronic monitoring systems Whitetip Sharks (C–11–10), which is Atlantic HMS Management Division depending on the gear used and where described in more detail below in the within NMFS develops regulations for they fish. In terms of processing sharks International Regulatory Mechanisms Atlantic HMS fisheries, and primarily landed, the head may be removed and section of this proposed rule. According coordinates the management of Atlantic the shark may be gutted and bled, but to the final rule mentioned previously, HMS fisheries in Federal waters the shark cannot be filleted or cut into U.S. fisheries that target highly (domestic) and the high seas pieces while onboard the vessel and all migratory species rarely retain, (international), while individual states fins, including the tail, must remain transship, land, or sell this species in establish regulations for HMS in state naturally attached to the carcass through the IATTC Convention Area. waters. The NMFS Atlantic HMS offloading. The WPFMC has jurisdiction over the Management Division currently In 2011, NMFS published final EEZs of Hawaii, Territories of American manages 42 species of sharks (excluding regulations to implement decisions of Samoa and Guam, Commonwealth of ) under the Consolidated ICCAT (i.e., Recommendation 10–07 for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Atlantic HMS FMP (NMFS 2006). The the conservation of oceanic whitetip Pacific Remote Island Areas, as well as management of these sharks is divided sharks), which prohibits retention of the domestic fisheries that occur on the into five species groups: Large coastal oceanic whitetip sharks in the PLL adjacent high seas. The WPFMC sharks, small coastal sharks, pelagic fishery and on recreational (HMS developed the Pelagics Fishery sharks, smoothhound sharks, and Angling and Charter headboat permit Ecosystem Plan (FEP; formerly the prohibited sharks. Oceanic whitetip holders) vessels that possess tuna, Fishery Management Plan for the sharks are managed under the pelagic swordfish, or billfish (76 FR 53652). The Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific sharks group. One way that the HMS implementation of regulations to Region) in 1986 and NMFS, on behalf of Management Division controls and comply with ICCAT Recommendation the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, monitors commercial harvest is by 10–07 for the conservation of oceanic approved the Plan in 1987. Under the requiring U.S. commercial Atlantic whitetip sharks is likely the most FEP, the oceanic whitetip shark is HMS fishermen who fish for or sell influential regulatory mechanism in designated as a Pelagic Management sharks to have a Federal Atlantic terms of reducing mortality of oceanic Unit Species and is subject to Directed or Incidental shark limited whitetip sharks in the U.S. Atlantic. It regulations. These regulations are access permit. These permits are should be noted that oceanic whitetip intended to minimize impacts to administered under a limited access sharks are still occasionally caught as targeted stocks as well as protected program, and NMFS is no longer issuing bycatch and landed in this region species. Fishery data are also analyzed new shark permits. As of October 2015, despite its prohibited status in ICCAT in annual reports and used to amend the 224 U.S. fishermen are permitted to associated fisheries (NMFS 2012; 2014), FEP as necessary. In Hawaii and target sharks managed by the HMS as retention is permitted in other American Samoa, oceanic whitetip Management Division in the Atlantic authorized gears other than pelagic sharks are predominantly caught in Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and an longlines (e.g., gillnets, bottom longline fisheries that operate under additional 275 fishermen are permitted longlines); however, these numbers extensive regulatory measures, to land sharks incidentally (NMFS have decreased. Prior to the including gear, permit, logbook, vessel 2015). Under a directed shark permit, implementation of the retention monitoring system, and protected there is no directed numeric retention prohibition on oceanic whitetip, an species workshop requirements. In limit for pelagic sharks, subject to quota analysis of the 2005–2009 HMS logbook 2015, NMFS published a final rule to limitations. An incidental permit allows data indicated that, on average, a total implement decisions of the WCPFC to fishers to keep up to a total of 16 pelagic of 50 oceanic whitetip sharks were kept prohibit the retention of oceanic or small coastal sharks (all species per year, with an additional 147 oceanic whitetip sharks in fisheries operating combined) per vessel per trip. Current whitetip sharks caught per year and within the WCPFC’s area of competence authorized gear types for oceanic subsequently discarded (133 released (or Convention Area), which comprises whitetip sharks include: Bottom alive and 14 discarded dead). Thus, the majority of the Western and Central longline, gillnet, rod and reel, handline, without the prohibition, approximately Pacific Ocean. The regulations were or bandit gear. There are no restrictions 197 oceanic whitetip sharks could be published in the Federal Register on on the types of hooks that may be used caught and 64 oceanic whitetip sharks February 19, 2015 (80 FR 8807) and to catch oceanic whitetip sharks, and (32 percent) could die from being include prohibitions on the retention of there is no commercial minimum size discarded dead or retained each year the oceanic whitetip shark, as well as limit. The annual quota for pelagic (NMFS 2011). Since the prohibition was requirements to release any oceanic sharks (other than blue sharks or implemented in 2011, estimated whitetip caught. These regulations are porbeagle sharks) is currently 488 mt commercial landings of oceanic applicable to all U.S. fishing vessels dressed weight. NMFS monitors the whitetip declined from only 1.1 mt in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96320 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

2011 to only 0.03 mt (dressed weight) in behind the overutilization of many and trip limits, species-specific 2013 (NMFS 2012; 2014). In fact, from global shark species, including the retention prohibitions in PLL gear, and 2013–2014, NMFS reported a total of 81 oceanic whitetip, the U.S. participation finning regulations are not in and of oceanic whitetip interactions, with 83 in this trade appears to be diminishing. themselves inadequate such that they percent (67 individuals) released alive In 2012, the value of fins also decreased, are contributing to the global extinction and 17 percent (14 individuals) suggesting that the worldwide demand risk of the species. In fact, it is likely discarded dead (NMFS 2014; 2015). for fins may be on a decline. For that the stable CPUE trend observed for While the retention ban for oceanic example, a decrease in U.S. fin prices the oceanic whitetip shark in the whitetip does not prevent incidental coincided with the implementation of Northwest Atlantic is largely a result of catch or subsequent at-vessel and post- fin bans in various U.S. states in 2012 the implementation of management release mortality, it likely provides and 2013, and U.S. shark fin exports measures for pelagic sharks under the minor ecological benefits to oceanic have continued on a declining trend U.S. HMS FMP. However, because whitetip sharks via a reduction in (Miller et al., 2013). However, it should oceanic whitetip sharks are highly overall fishing mortality in the Atlantic be noted that the continued decline is migratory and frequently move beyond PLL fishery (NMFS 2011). also likely a result of the waning global U.S. jurisdiction, these regulatory In addition to general commercial demand for shark fins altogether. mechanisms are limited on the global fishing regulations for management of Similarly, many U.S. states, especially stage in that they only provide highly migratory species, the United on the West Coast, and U.S. Flag Pacific protections to oceanic whitetip sharks States has implemented a couple of Island Territories have also passed fin while in U.S. waters. While this does significant laws for the conservation and bans and trade regulations, not make them inadequate in terms of management of sharks: the Shark subsequently decreasing the United their purpose of protecting oceanic Finning Prohibition Act and the Shark States’ contribution to the fin trade. For whitetip sharks while in U.S. waters, Conservation Act. The example, after the State of Hawaii finning and retention bans are likely Prohibition Act was enacted in prohibited finning in its waters and inadequate in other parts of the world December 2000 and implemented by required shark fins to be landed with to prevent further population declines final rule on February 11, 2002 (67 FR their corresponding carcasses in the of oceanic whitetip as a result of 6194), and prohibited any person under state in 2000, the shark fin exports from overutilization (as discussed in detail U.S. jurisdiction from: (i) Engaging in the United States into Hong Kong below). Therefore, given the significant the finning of sharks; (ii) possessing declined significantly in 2001 (54 abundance declines observed for the shark fins aboard a fishing vessel percent decrease, from 374 to 171 t) as species as a result of overutilization, without the corresponding carcass; and Hawaii could therefore no longer be and the fact that regulatory mechanisms (iii) landing shark fins without the used as a fin trading center for the are largely inadequate elsewhere across corresponding carcass. It also international fisheries operating and the species’ range, it is unlikely that implemented a five percent fin to finning in the Central Pacific (Clarke et U.S. regulatory mechanisms alone are carcass ratio, creating a rebuttable al., 2007). With regard to oceanic enough to mitigate for threats presumption that fins landed from a whitetip sharks, the finning regulations contributing to the species’ global fishing vessel or found on board a introduced in 2001 in the U.S. Hawaii- extinction risk. fishing vessel were taken, held, or based longline fishery have acted to International Regulatory Mechanisms landed in violation of the Act if the total reduce mortality on oceanic whitetip weight of fins landed or found on board Regarding international regulatory and other large shark species (Walsh et the vessel exceeded five percent of the mechanisms, the ERA team expressed al., 2009). Prior to the ban, from 1995– total weight of carcasses landed or significant concern regarding existing 2000, the fins were taken from a large found on board the vessel. The Shark regulations to control bycatch-related proportion of captured oceanic whitetip Conservation Act was signed into law mortality, finning of oceanic whitetip with the remaining carcass being on January 4, 2011, and implemented by sharks for the international shark fin discarded (72.3 percent in deep sets and final rule on June 29, 2016 (81 FR trade, and illegal fishing and trafficking 52.7 percent from shallow sets), as was 42285), and, with a limited exception activities. The ERA team recognized that the case with other large sharks (Walsh for smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis), the number of international regulatory et al., 2009). From 2004–2006, following prohibits any person from removing mechanisms for sharks in general, and shark fins at sea, or possessing, the implementation of the new the oceanic whitetip shark in particular, transferring, or landing shark fins unless regulations, almost all sharks were have been on the rise in recent years. they are naturally attached to the released, although some were dead on For example, the oceanic whitetip shark corresponding carcass. release. Overall, minimum mortality was listed under Appendix II of the As expected, U.S. exports of dried estimates declined substantially as a Convention on International Trade in shark fins dropped significantly after result of the finning regulations, from Endangered Species of Wild Flora and the passage of the Shark Finning 81.9 percent to 25.6 percent in deep sets Fauna (CITES) in 2014. CITES is an Prohibition Act. In 2011, with the and from 61.3 percent to 9.1 percent in international agreement between passage of the U.S. Shark Conservation shallow sets (Walsh et al., 2009). governments, with the aim of ensuring Act, exports of dried shark fins dropped However, aside from this example, there that international trade in specimens of again, by 58 percent, to 15 mt, the is little information on the level of wild animals and plants does not second lowest export amount since compliance with the various fisheries threaten their survival. International 2001. This is in contrast to the price per management measures for sharks, trade in specimens of Appendix-II kg of shark fin, which was at its highest including oceanic whitetip, with species may be authorized by the price of ∼$100/kg, and suggests that compliance likely variable among other granting of an export permit or re-export existing regulations have likely been countries and regions. certificate. No import permit is effective at discouraging fishing for Overall, regulations to control for necessary for these species under CITES sharks solely for the purpose of the fin overutilization of oceanic whitetip (although a permit is needed in some trade. Thus, although the international sharks in U.S. waters, including countries that have taken stricter shark fin trade is likely a driving force fisheries management plans with quotas measures than CITES requires).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96321

However, recent data from Hong Kong’s Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Honduras, after interactions with purse seine Agriculture Fisheries Conservation Sabah (), and Tokelau (an fisheries (i.e., ∼85 percent in Western Department (AFCD) suggests that these island territory of New Zealand) adding and Central Pacific and Indian Ocean measures are not adequately to the list in 2011, the Cook Islands in tropical purse seine fisheries; Poisson et implemented or enforced by all CITES 2012, and the Federated States of al., (2014); Hutchinson et al., (2015)). Parties with respect to the oceanic Micronesia in 2015. These ‘‘shark Given that oceanic whitetip sharks are whitetip shark. Specifically, since the sanctuaries’’ (i.e., locations where captured in a net where they are unable oceanic whitetip shark was listed under harvesting sharks is prohibited) can also to swim, and they are also subjected to CITES Appendix II in 2014, be found in the Eastern Tropical Pacific the weight of whatever tonnage is on top approximately 1,263 kg (2,784 lbs) of Seascape (which encompasses around of them, the sharks likely experience oceanic whitetip fins have been two million km2 and includes the high levels of stress that can lead to confiscated upon entry into Hong Kong Galapagos, Cocos, and Malpelo Islands), mortality even if they are released alive. because the country of origin did not in waters off the Maldives, Mauritania, In addition, rough handling techniques include the required CITES permits and Palau, French Polynesia, New Caledonia utilized after sharks are brought onboard paperwork. Since 2014, confiscated and Raja Ampat, Indonesia. However, it can also increase mortality. Thus, the oceanic whitetip fin shipments included should be noted that sharks can still be ERA team concluded, and we agree, that 940.46 kg from Colombia, 10.96 kg from caught as bycatch in these areas and the retention prohibition enacted for the Seychelles, and 272.49 kg from the enforcement is likely difficult; thus, oceanic whitetip sharks in the eastern United Arab Emirates (AFCD, their efficacy for reducing bycatch- Pacific, particularly for the tropical tuna Unpublished data). related mortality of sharks is uncertain. purse seine fishery, is not likely In addition to trade regulations, In addition to international regulatory effective in reducing the threat of finning bans have been implemented by mechanisms for the conservation of overutilization in this region. a number of countries, including the sharks in general via shark finning and In the Western and Central Pacific, European Union (EU), as well as by nine fishing bans, a number of species- the WCPFC also has regulatory RFMOs. These finning bans range from specific measures have been measures for the conservation of sharks requiring fins remain attached to the implemented for the conservation of in general, as well as specific measures body, to allowing fishers to remove oceanic whitetip sharks in particular. for the conservation of oceanic whitetip shark fins provided that the weight of Specifically, the oceanic whitetip is the sharks. Likely the most influential the fins does not exceed 5 percent of the only shark species that has a no- management measure for the total weight of shark carcasses landed or retention measure in every tuna RFMO, conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks found onboard. In fact, all of the which underscores the species’ in the Western and Central Pacific is relevant RFMOS prohibit fins onboard conservation status. However, the ERA Conservation Management Measure that weigh more than 5 percent of the team noted that international (CMM) 2011–04, which prohibits weight of sharks to curb the practice of regulations specific to oceanic whitetip WCPFC vessels from retaining onboard, shark finning (i.e., the fins-to-carcass sharks are likely inadequate to mitigate transshipping, storing on a fishing ratio). Although the fins-to-carcass threats that will result in further vessel, or landing any oceanic whitetip weight ratios have the potential to population declines throughout the shark, in whole or in part, in the reduce the practice of finning, these species’ global range. Notably, these fisheries covered by the Convention. regulations do not prohibit the fishing of measures likely have varying rates of However, observations from the longline sharks and a number of issues implementation and enforcement and fishery have shown that CMM 2011–04 associated with reliance on the 5 they do not prevent oceanic whitetip for the retention prohibition of oceanic percent fins-to-carcass weight ratio sharks from being caught in the first whitetip is not being strictly followed requirement have been identified, place, nor the subsequent at-vessel and (or not yet fully implemented), with including: the percentage of fins-to- post-release mortality that may result non-negligible proportions of oceanic carcass weight varies widely among from being captured. Additionally, whitetips still being retained or finned. species, fin types used in calculation, evidence suggests illegal trafficking and In fact, both in number and the type of carcass weight used (whole exportation activities of oceanic proportionally more oceanic whitetip or dressed) and fin cutting techniques; whitetip sharks are ongoing. sharks were retained in 2013 (the first under the fins-to-carcass weight ratio In 2011, the IATTC adopted year of the CMM) than 2012 in the measure, sharks that are not landed with Resolution C–11–10 for the conservation longline fishery (Rice et al., 2015). In fins attached to the body make it of oceanic whitetip sharks, which addition, observations from the Western difficult to match fins to a carcass (Lack provides that IATTC Members and and Central tropical tuna purse seine and Sant 2009). There are also issues Cooperating non-Members shall prohibit fishery suggest similar issues discussed with using the ratios for dried vs. fresh retaining onboard, transshipping, previously for the eastern Pacific purse fins, which can change the ratio landing, storing, selling, or offering for seine fishery: Even if live release is substantially. Further, despite their sale any part or whole carcass of oceanic strictly practiced in purse seine existence, laws and regulations are whitetip sharks in the IATTC fisheries, the number of sharks rapidly changing and are not always Convention Area. However, this surviving is expected to be low. effectively enforced by countries and measure is not likely adequate to In addition to finning controls and RFMOs (Biery and Pauly 2012). prevent capture and a substantial species-specific retention bans, the Numerous RFMOs and countries have amount of mortality in the main fishery WCPFC has also adopted some also implemented various regulations that catches oceanic whitetip sharks in conservation measures related to regarding shark fishing in general, this region (i.e., the tropical tuna purse fisheries gear to reduce bycatch of which are described in detail in the seine fishery). Though published oceanic whitetip sharks in the first Status Review Report (Young et al., mortality rates of the oceanic whitetip place. For example, CMM 2014–05, 2016). A number of countries have shark in purse seine fisheries are not which became effective in July 2015, enacted complete shark fishing bans available, it is likely the species requires each national fleet to either ban (i.e., bans on retention and possession of experiences high mortality rates similar wire leaders or ban shark lines, both of sharks and shark products), with the to congener C. falciformis during and which have potential to reduce shark

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96322 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

bycatch. However, while it is predicted efficacy for reducing fishing pressure on jurisdiction ended in 2012, and onboard that oceanic whitetip shark mortality oceanic whitetip sharks in Brazil. Since observer programs have been cancelled, may be reduced by up to 40 percent if the implementation of ICCAT which renders any further monitoring of both measures are used, this CMM Recommendation 10–07, Brazil reported South Atlantic shark populations allows flag-states to choose which 12 mt of oceanic whitetip from 2013– difficult or impossible (Barreto et al., fishing technique they exclude. Using 2014, which indicates the species is still 2015). Given the foregoing information, Monte Carlo simulations, Harley and being caught and continues to it appears that existing regulatory Pilling (2016) determined the following: experience fisheries-related mortality in mechanisms in Brazil may not be if flag-states choose to exclude the this portion of its range. In addition to adequate to effectively manage the technique least used by their vessels, ICCAT regulations, sharks in Brazil significant threat of fishing pressure and the median predicted reduction in must be landed with corresponding fins associated mortality on oceanic whitetip fishing-related mortality is only 10 and a 5 percent fin to carcass weight sharks in this region. percent for the oceanic whitetip shark. ratio is required. In addition, all The ERA team also identified several If flag-states exclude the technique most carcasses and fins must be unloaded issues with regulations in the Indian used by their vessels, this would reduce and weighed and the weights reported Ocean. The IOTC, the main regulatory the fishing mortality rate by 30 percent. to authorities. Pelagic gillnets and body for managing tuna and tuna-like This compares to a reduction of 40 trawls are prohibited in waters less than species, has management measures in percent if choice was removed and both 3 nm (5.6 km) from the coast; however, place for sharks in general, and also techniques are prohibited. Therefore, given that the oceanic whitetip is a specifically for the oceanic whitetip given the high levels of fishing mortality pelagic species, a gillnet ban within 3 shark. In 2013, the IOTC passed experienced by this species, it is nm of the coast is not likely going to be Resolution 13–06 that prohibits the unlikely that the options under CMM beneficial to the species. Further, it is retention, transshipment, landing, or (2014–05) of either banning shark lines generally recognized that these storing of any part or whole carcass of or wire traces will result in sufficient regulations are poorly enforced oceanic whitetip sharks. However, reductions in fishing mortality (Harley (Chiaramonte and Vooren 2007). In unlike similar regulations implemented et al., 2015). Thus, based on the December 2014, the Brazilian by other RFMOs, the IOTC retention foregoing information, the ERA team Government’s Chico Mendes Institute prohibition of oceanic whitetip shark concluded, and we agree, that despite for Biodiversity Conservation approved exempts ‘‘artisanal fisheries operating the increasing species-specific the National Plan of Action for the exclusively in their respective EEZ for management measures in this region, Conservation of Elasmobranchs of Brazil the purpose of local consumption.’’ given the severely depleted state of the (No 125). However, this plan will not be However, the definition of artisanal oceanic whitetip population and the fully implemented until 2019, and it vessels in the IOTC encompasses a wide significant levels of fishing mortality the focuses on a list of 12 priority species array of boats with vastly different species experiences in this region, that does not include the oceanic characteristics. They range from the less-than-full implementation will erode whitetip shark. As noted previously, the pirogue that fishes close to shore for the benefits of any mitigation measures. oceanic whitetip shark was designated subsistence with no motor, no deck and In the Atlantic Ocean, ICCAT is the as a ‘‘species threatened by no holding facilities, to a longliner, main regulatory body for the overexploitation’’ in 2004 by Brazil’s gillnetter or purse seiner of less than 24 conservation and management of tuna Ministry of Environment, and listed m with an inboard motor, deck, and tuna-like species. In 2010, ICCAT under Annex II of Brazil’s Normative communications, fish holding facilities, developed Recommendation 10–07, Ruling No. 5 of May 21, 2004. In 2014, and in some cases chilling or freezing which specifically prohibits the Brazil finalized its national assessment capabilities. This latter vessel could retention, transshipping, landing, regarding the extinction risk of Brazilian potentially conduct fishing operations storing, selling, or offering for sale any fauna, and listed the oceanic whitetip offshore, including outside its EEZ part or whole carcass of oceanic shark as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ under Brazil’s (Moreno and Herrera 2013). For whitetip sharks in any fishery; however, National Official List of Endangered example, in 2014 and 2015 the Islamic like other previously described Species of Fauna—Fish and Aquatic Republic of Iran and Sri Lanka reported retention bans, the retention ban Invertebrate (ICMBio 2014). Species 239 mt of oceanic whitetip sharks implemented by ICCAT does not listed as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ enjoy full caught by gillnets that fall under the necessarily prevent all fisheries- protection, including, among other definition of ‘‘artisanal fisheries.’’ associated mortality. Although oceanic measures, the prohibition of capture, Additionally, while some no-retention whitetip sharks have a relatively higher transport, storage, custody, handling, measures ban the ‘‘selling or offering for at-vessel survivorship rate than other processing and marketing. The capture, sale’’ of any products from the specified pelagic sharks in the Atlantic, some will transport, storage, and handling of shark species, the IOTC oceanic still likely die as a result of being specimens of the species shall only be whitetip shark measure does not (Clarke caught. As previously discussed in the allowed for research purposes or for the 2013). Further, this measure is not Overutilization for Commercial, conservation of the species, with the binding on India, which is one of the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational permission of the Instituto Chico main oceanic whitetip shark catching Purposes section of this proposed rule, Mendes. However, whether these countries identified by the IOTC in the Brazil is one of the top 26 shark- regulations are adequately implemented Indian Ocean. Finally, IOTC Resolution catching countries in the world and the and enforced is unclear. In fact, there is 13–06 was passed as an interim pilot largest oceanic whitetip catching strong opposition from the fishing measure; therefore, it is highly uncertain country in the Atlantic Ocean, industry and some ordinances as to whether this measure will be comprising 89 percent of the total guaranteeing protection to endangered ongoing into the foreseeable future. As oceanic whitetip catch reported to species in the country have recently a result, it appears that the retention ban ICCAT from 1992–2014. Thus, the been canceled (Di Dario et al., 2014). of oceanic whitetip in the Indian Ocean following text focuses on existing Additionally, systematic data collection is limited in scope relative to other regulatory mechanisms and their from fleets fishing over Brazilian RFMO no-retention measures, and only

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96323

partially protective depending on whitetip shark fins in several markets may be effective for reducing the threat whether the measure is adequately throughout its range, as well as several of overutilization to some degree. For implemented and enforced. For recent incidents of illegal finning and example, as noted in the U.S. Domestic example, in Indonesia, which is the trafficking of oceanic whitetip fins Regulatory Mechanisms section, in the largest shark fishing nation in the world, despite national and international U.S. Northwest Atlantic and Pacific oceanic whitetip sharks are protected in regulations. For example, in February Island States and Territories oceanic order to comply with IOTC Resolution 2013, oceanic whitetip fins were found whitetip sharks are managed under 13–06. However, evidence suggests that in a large seizure of fins from a comprehensive management plans and this Resolution may not be strictly Taiwanese vessel illegally fishing in the regulations with trip limits, quotas, adhered to. For instance, in a genetic Marshall Islands. In 2014, illegal logbook and protected species barcoding study of shark fin samples oceanic whitetip shark fins were requirements, and other various fishing throughout traditional fish markets in discovered in a random sample restrictions. In the Northwest Atlantic, Indonesia from mid-2012 to mid-2014, inspection of three 40 kg sacks slated for oceanic whitetip sharks are managed oceanic whitetip shark was identified as export from Costa Rica to Hong Kong under the pelagic species complex of present (Sembiring et al., 2015) despite (Tico Times 2014). Additionally, and as the Atlantic HMS FMP, with being prohibited in 2013. In addition, previously noted, Indonesian authorities commercial quotas imposed that restrict authorities confiscated around 3,000 seized 3,000 shark fins belonging to the overall level of oceanic whitetip oceanic whitetip shark fins from sharks oceanic whitetip sharks that were sharks taken in this part of its range. caught in waters near Java Island as reportedly caught in waters around Java Pelagic longline gear is heavily managed recent as October 2015 (South China Island in October 2015. The fins, which and strictly monitored. The use of Morning Post 2015). Thus, while it were about to be flown to Hong Kong, pelagic longline gear (targeting generally appears that the IOTC has were seized at the international airport swordfish, tuna and/or shark) also increased its number of management that serves the capital Jakarta. This haul requires specific permits, with all measures for sharks, including the was worth an estimated U.S. $72,000 in required permits administered under a oceanic whitetip, these regulations are Indonesia, but would reportedly fetch limited access program. Presently, no likely inadequate to prevent further several times that amount in Hong Kong new permits are being issued; thus, population declines of the oceanic (South China Morning Post 2015). persons wishing to enter the fishery may whitetip shark in this region as a result Therefore, it is clear that the oceanic only obtain these permits by transferring of overutilization. whitetip shark is subject to illegal the permit from a permit holder who is It is clear that many countries and fishing and trafficking, particularly for leaving the fishery, and transferees are RFMOs have implemented shark finning its valuable fins. Given the recent currently subject to vessel upgrading bans or have prohibited the sale or trade downturn in the shark fin trade (Dent & restrictions. These national regulations, of shark fins or products, and have even Clarke, 2015; Eriksson & Clarke 2015), as detailed in the 2006 Consolidated prohibited the retention of oceanic the threat of this IUU fishing for the sole HMS FMP and described in this Status whitetip sharks in their respective purpose of shark fins may not be as Review Report, combined with ICCAT’s fisheries, with declining trends in significant into the future. However, Recommendation 10–07 on the finning and catches of oceanic whitetip based on the best available information retention prohibition of oceanic sharks evident in some locations as a on the species’ declining population whitetip shark, have likely led to the result of these regulations (e.g., Fiji, trends throughout its range, as well as recent stabilization of the Northwest Australia and the United States; see current utilization levels, the present Atlantic population. In Hawaii, finning Young et al., 2016 for more details). It mortality rates associated with illegal and no-retention regulations have also evident that the international trade fishing and its impacts on oceanic resulted in a significant decline in the in shark fins may be gradually slowing. whitetip shark populations may be number of oceanic whitetip sharks In fact, as described previously, the contributing to the overutilization of the finned and an increase in the number of trade in shark fins through China, Hong species. Therefore, based on the sharks released alive. Thus, these U.S. Kong SAR, which has served as an foregoing information, the ERA team conservation and management measures indicator of the global trade for many concluded that despite national and in and of themselves are not inadequate years, fell by 22 percent in 2012. international regulations to protect the such that they contribute to the Additionally, current indications are oceanic whitetip, illegal finning and extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip that the shark fin trade through Hong exportation activities are ongoing. As shark by increasing demographic risks Kong SAR and China will continue to such, and based on the best available (e.g., further abundance declines) or the contract (Dent & Clarke 2015). However, information, existing regulatory threat of overutilization (e.g., although the overall situation regarding mechanisms to control for unsustainable catch rates) currently and the shark fin trade appears to be overutilization by the shark fin trade are in the foreseeable future. However, the improving due to current regulations likely inadequate to significantly reduce oceanic whitetip shark is highly (e.g., increasing number of finning bans) this threat to the oceanic whitetip shark migratory and often moves beyond U.S. and trends (e.g., waning demand for at this time. jurisdiction. For example, in just one shark fins), and it may not be as severe Overall, and based on the above tagging study conducted in the a threat to some species of sharks review of regulatory measures (in Northwest Atlantic, five tagged oceanic compared to others, evidence suggests addition to the regulations described in whitetip sharks made transboundary that oceanic whitetip fins are Young et al., 2016), the ERA team movements, spending time in waters considered to be preferred or ‘‘first concluded, and we agree, that existing managed by different countries (United choice’’ in the Hong Kong market regulatory mechanisms to control for States, Cuba, and several of the (Vannuccini 1999; E-CoP16Prop.42 overutilization are largely inadequate to windward Caribbean islands) or the 2013) and the high demand for oceanic significantly reduce this global threat to high seas that are managed by whitetip fins is ongoing. This is the oceanic whitetip shark at this time. international bodies (Howey-Jordan et evidenced by recent genetic studies that The ERA team acknowledged that in al. 2013). Additionally, the ERA team confirm the presence of oceanic some locations, regulatory measures emphasized that regulatory mechanisms

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96324 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

to control for overutilization of the exposure to industrial fisheries, full implementation and enforcement. species are largely inadequate including pelagic longline and purse The ERA team noted that proper throughout the rest of the species’ global seine fisheries operating within the implementation and enforcement of range. Therefore, based on the best species’ core tropical habitat throughout these regulations would likely result in available information, and given the its global range. In addition to declines a reduction in overall mortality of the significant global abundance declines of in oceanic whitetip catches throughout species over time. However, the best the oceanic whitetip shark as a result of its range, there is also evidence of available information suggests that this overutilization, the inadequacy of declining average size over time in some may not currently be the case. Given the existing regulatory mechanisms is likely areas, which is particularly concerning species’ depleted state throughout its a threat contributing to the species’ risk given evidence that litter size is range, the ERA team agreed that less of extinction throughout its range. potentially correlated with maternal than full implementation and Overall Risk Summary length. With such extensive declines in enforcement of current regulations is the species’ global abundance and the Guided by the results and discussions likely undermining any conservation ongoing threat of overutilization, the benefit to the species. from the demographic risk analysis and species’ slow growth and relatively low threats assessment, the ERA team fecundity may limit its ability for Based on all of the foregoing members used their informed compensation. Related to this, the low information, which represents the best professional judgment to make an genetic diversity of oceanic whitetip is scientific and commercial data available overall extinction risk determination for also cause for concern and a viable risk regarding current demographic risks and the oceanic whitetip shark now and in over the foreseeable future for this threats to the species, the ERA team the foreseeable future. The ERA team species. This is particularly concerning concluded that the oceanic whitetip concluded, and we agree, that the since it is possible (though uncertain) shark currently has a moderate risk of oceanic whitetip shark currently has a that a reduction in genetic diversity extinction throughout its range. We ‘‘moderate’’ risk of extinction globally. following the large reduction in concluded that the species does not The ERA team was fairly confident in population size due to overutilization currently have a high risk of extinction determining the overall level of has not yet manifested in the species. because of the following: The species extinction risk of the oceanic whitetip Loss of genetic diversity can lead to has a significantly broad distribution shark, placing more than half of their reduced fitness and a limited ability to and does not seem to have been likelihood points in the ‘‘moderate risk’’ adapt to a rapidly changing extirpated in any region, even in areas category. To express some uncertainty, environment, thus increasing the particularly regarding the lack of robust where there is heavy harvest bycatch species’ overall risk of extinction. abundance trends and catch data for and utilization of the species’ high- populations in certain areas (e.g., South Finally, the species’ extensive value fins; there appears to be a Atlantic and Indian Ocean), as well as distribution, ranging across entire potential for relative stability in potential stabilizing trends observed in oceans and across multiple international population sizes on the order of 5–10 two areas (e.g., Northwest Atlantic and boundaries complicates management of years at the post-decline depressed Hawaii), the team placed some of their the species. The ERA team agreed that state, as evidenced by the potential likelihood points in the ‘‘low risk’’ and implementation and enforcement of stabilization of two populations (e.g., ‘‘high risk’’ categories as well. management measures that could NW Atlantic and Hawaii) at a Likelihood points attributed to the reduce the threat of overutilization to diminished abundance, which suggests overall level of extinction risk categories the species are likely highly variable that this species is potentially capable of were as follows: Low Risk (20/60), and/or lacking altogether across the persisting at a low population size; and Moderate Risk (34/60), High Risk (6/60). species’ range. The ERA team the overall reduction of the fin trade as The ERA team reiterated that the once acknowledged a significant increase in well as increasing management abundant and ubiquitous oceanic species-specific management measures regulations will likely reduce the threat whitetip shark has likely experienced to control for overutilization of oceanic of overutilization to some extent, and significant historical population whitetip shark across its range; thus reduce the species’ overall risk of declines throughout its global range, however, the ERA team also noted that extinction. However, given the species’ most of these regulations, particularly with multiple data sources and significant historical and ongoing the retention prohibitions enacted by all analyses, including a stock assessment abundance declines of varying relevant RFMOs throughout the range of and trends in relative abundance, magnitudes in all three ocean basins, the species, are too new to truly suggesting declines greater than 70–80 slow growth, low fecundity, and low percent in most areas. The ERA team determine their efficacy in reducing genetic diversity, combined with concluded that declining abundance mortality of oceanic whitetip shark. ongoing threats of overutilization and trends of varying magnitudes are likely Despite this limitation, and with the largely inadequate regulatory ongoing in all three ocean basins. exception of the Northwest Atlantic and In terms of threats to the species, the Pacific Island States and Territories, the mechanisms, the ERA team concluded ERA team noted that the most ERA team was not confident in the that the oceanic whitetip shark significant threat to the continued adequacy of these regulations to reduce currently has a moderate risk of existence of the oceanic whitetip shark the threat of overutilization and prevent extinction throughout its global range. in the foreseeable future is ongoing and further abundance declines in the In other words, due to significant and significantly high rates of fishing foreseeable future. First, the ERA team ongoing threats of overutilization and mortality driven by demands of the discussed the fact that retention largely inadequate regulatory international trade in shark fins and prohibitions do not prevent at-vessel mechanisms, current trends in the meat, as well as impacts related to and post-release mortality, which is species’ abundance, productivity and incidental bycatch and IUU fishing. The likely high in some fisheries. In genetic diversity place the species on a ERA team emphasized that the oceanic addition, the biggest concern to the ERA trajectory towards a high risk of whitetip shark’s vertical and horizontal team with regard to these regulatory extinction in the foreseeable future of distribution significantly increases its mechanisms going forward is the lack of ∼30 years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96325

Conservation Efforts al. (2014) reported the following sharks by using genetic techniques, as Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires regarding the declining demand for well as migration patterns of this the Secretary, when making a listing shark fins: An 82 percent decline in species in the western Atlantic with the determination for a species, to take into sales reported by shark fin vendors in aid of satellite tracking technologies. All account those efforts, if any, being made Guangzhou, China and a decrease in of these conservation efforts and non- by any State or foreign nation to protect prices (47 percent retail and 57 percent regulatory mechanisms are beneficial to the species. In judging the efficacy of wholesale) over the past 2 years; 85 the persistence of the oceanic whitetip protective efforts, we rely on the percent of Chinese consumers surveyed shark. The implementation of many of Services’ joint ‘‘Policy for Evaluation of online said they gave up shark fin soup these efforts, especially the shark Conservation Efforts When Making within the past 3 years, and two-thirds research programs, will help to fill Listing Decisions’’ (‘‘PECE;’’ 68 FR of these respondents cited awareness current data gaps in oceanic whitetip 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE is campaigns as a reason for ending their abundance, genetics, and movement designed to guide determinations on shark fin consumption; 43 percent of patterns, which can ultimately help whether any conservation efforts that consumers responded that much of the inform other conservation and have been recently adopted or shark fin in the market is fake; 24 management measures. However, it is implemented, but not yet proven to be airlines, 3 shipping lines, and 5 hotel too soon to tell whether the collective successful, will result in recovering the groups have banned shark fins from conservation efforts of both non- species to the point at which listing is their operations; there has been an 80 governmental and academic not warranted or contribute to forming percent decline from 2007 levels in organizations will be effective in a basis for listing a species as threatened prices paid to fishermen in Tanjung reducing threats to the species, rather than endangered. The purpose of Luar and Lombok in Indonesia and a particularly those related to the PECE is to ensure consistent and decline of 19 percent since 2002–2003 overutilization of the oceanic whitetip adequate evaluation of future or recently in Central Maluku, Southeastern shark. Maluku and East Nusa Tenggara; and of implemented conservation efforts Proposed Determination identified in conservation agreements, 20 Beijing restaurant representatives conservation plans, management plans, interviewed, 19 reported a significant Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires and similar documents developed by decline in shark fin consumption. While that NMFS make listing determinations Federal agencies, State and local there seems to be a growing trend to based solely on the best scientific and governments, Tribal governments, prohibit and discourage shark finning commercial data available after businesses, organizations, and domestically and internationally, it is conducting a review of the status of the individuals when making listing difficult to predict at this time whether species and taking into account those decisions. The PECE provides direction the trend will be effective in reducing efforts, if any, being made by any state for the consideration of such the threat of overutilization to the or foreign nation, or political conservation efforts that have not yet oceanic whitetip shark. Nonetheless, we subdivisions thereof, to protect and been implemented, or have been conclude that these conservation conserve the species. We have implemented but have not yet measures are not likely to be effective in independently reviewed the best demonstrated effectiveness. The policy reducing current threats to oceanic available scientific and commercial is expected to facilitate the development whitetip shark to the point that listing information, including the petition, by states and other entities of would no longer be warranted. public comments submitted on the 90- conservation efforts that sufficiently There are also many other smaller day finding (81 FR 1376; January 12, improve a species’ status so as to make national and international organizations 2016), the status review report (Young et listing the species as threatened or with shark-focused goals that include al., 2016), and other published and endangered unnecessary. The PECE advocating the conservation of sharks unpublished information, and we have established two basic criteria: (1) The through education and campaign consulted with species experts and certainty that the conservation efforts programs and conducting shark research individuals familiar with the oceanic will be implemented, and (2) the to fill data gaps regarding the status of whitetip shark. We considered each of certainty that the efforts will be shark species. Some of these the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine effective. Satisfaction of the criteria for organizations include: The Pew whether it contributed significantly to implementation and effectiveness Environment Group, Oceana, Ocean the extinction risk of the species on its establishes a given protective effort as a Conservancy, Shark Trust, Bite-Back, own. We also considered the candidate for consideration, but does Shark Project, Pelagic Shark Research combination of those factors to not mean that an effort will ultimately Foundation, Shark Research Institute, determine whether they collectively change the risk assessment for the and Shark Savers. More information on contributed significantly to the species. Overall, the PECE analysis the specifics of these programs and extinction risk of the species. Therefore, ascertains whether the formalized groups can be found on their Web sites. our determination set forth below is conservation effort improves the status Important research on oceanic whitetip based on a synthesis and integration of of the species at the time a listing sharks is also being conducted in a joint the foregoing information, factors and determination is made. partnership by Nova Southeastern considerations, and their effects on the The concern regarding the practice of University and the Guy Harvey Research status of the species throughout its finning and its effect on global shark Institute. To facilitate conservation and range. With respect to the term populations has been growing both management efforts for oceanic whitetip ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ we accept the ERA domestically and internationally. sharks, the Guy Harvey Research team’s definition and rationale of Notably, the push to stop shark finning Institute/Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation approximately 30 years as reasonable for and curb the trade of shark fins is and their project partners are using the reliable prediction of threats on the evident overseas and even in Asian integrative approaches to investigate the biological status of the species. That countries, where the demand for shark population connectivity of this species, rationale for a foreseeable future of fin soup is highest. For example, in a including ongoing studies of the global approximately 30 years was provided in recent report from WildAid, Whitcraft et stock structure of oceanic whitetip detail previously (refer back to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96326 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Assessment of Extinction Risk— foreseeable future, and thus reduce the sources, non-point source pollution, Methods section of this proposed rule). species’ current overall risk of contaminated waste and plastic We conclude that the oceanic extinction; (5) there is no evidence that disposal, dredging, pile-driving, whitetip shark is not presently in danger disease or predation are contributing to development of water quality standards, of extinction, but is likely to become so an increased risk of extinction of the vessel traffic, military activities, and in the foreseeable future throughout all species; and (6) there is no evidence that fisheries management practices. other natural or manmade factors are of its range. We summarize the factors Critical Habitat supporting this conclusion as follows: contributing to an increased risk of Critical habitat is defined in section 3 (1) The best available information extinction of the species. of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) as: (1) indicates that the species has As a result of the foregoing findings, The specific areas within the experienced significant and ongoing which are based on the best scientific geographical area occupied by a species, abundance declines in all three ocean and commercial data available, we at the time it is listed in accordance basins (i.e., globally); (2) oceanic conclude that while the oceanic with the ESA, on which are found those whitetip sharks possess life history whitetip shark is not presently in danger physical or biological features (a) characteristics that increase their of extinction throughout all or a essential to the conservation of the vulnerability to harvest, including slow significant portion of its range, it is species and (b) that may require special growth, relatively late age of maturity, likely to become so within the management considerations or and low fecundity; (3) the species’ low foreseeable future. Accordingly, the oceanic whitetip shark meets the protection; and (2) specific areas outside genetic diversity in concert with steep definition of a threatened species, and the geographical area occupied by a global abundance declines and ongoing thus, the oceanic whitetip shark species at the time it is listed upon a threats of overutilization may pose a warrants listing as a threatened species determination that such areas are viable risk to the species in the at this time. essential for the conservation of the foreseeable future; (4) due to the species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use species’ preferred vertical and Effects of Listing of all methods and procedures needed horizontal habitat, the oceanic whitetip Conservation measures provided for to bring the species to the point at shark is extremely susceptible to species listed as endangered or which listing under the ESA is no incidental capture in both longline and threatened under the ESA include the longer necessary. Section 4(a)(3)(a) of purse seine fisheries throughout its development and implementation of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) range, and thus experiences substantial recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); requires that, to the extent prudent and levels of fishing mortality from these designation of critical habitat, if prudent determinable, critical habitat be fisheries; (5) the oceanic whitetip shark and determinable (16 U.S.C. designated concurrently with the listing is a preferred species in the 1533(a)(3)(A)); a requirement that of a species. Designations of critical international fin market for its large, Federal agencies consult with NMFS habitat must be based on the best morphologically distinct fins, which under section 7 of the ESA to ensure scientific data available and must take incentivizes the retention and/or finning their actions do not jeopardize the into consideration the economic, of the species; and (6) despite the species or result in adverse modification national security, and other relevant increasing number of regulations for the or destruction of designated critical impacts of specifying any particular area conservation of the species, existing habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536); and as critical habitat. If we determine that regulatory mechanisms are largely prohibitions on ‘‘taking’’ (16 U.S.C. it is prudent and determinable, we will inadequate for addressing the most 1538). Recognition of the species’ plight publish a proposed designation of important threat of overutilization through listing may also promote critical habitat for the oceanic whitetip throughout a large portion of the conservation actions by Federal and shark in a separate rule. Public input on species’ range. We conclude that the state agencies, foreign entities, private features and areas in U.S. waters that species is not presently in danger of groups, and individuals. may meet the definition of critical extinction as a result of the following habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark is Identifying Section 7 Consultation supporting factors: (1) The species is invited. broadly distributed over a large Requirements geographic range, and does not seem to Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) Protective Regulations Under Section have been extirpated in any region, even of the ESA and NMFS/FWS regulations 4(d) of the ESA in areas where there is heavy harvest require Federal agencies to confer with We are proposing to list the oceanic bycatch and utilization of the species’ us on actions likely to jeopardize the whitetip shark, Carcharhinus high-value fins; (2) there appears to be continued existence of species proposed longimanus, as a threatened species a potential for relative stability in for listing, or that result in the under the ESA. In the case of threatened population sizes on the order of 5–10 destruction or adverse modification of species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the years at the post-decline depressed proposed critical habitat. If a proposed Secretary’s discretion whether, and to state, as evidenced by the potential species is ultimately listed, Federal what extent, to extend the section 9(a) stabilization of two populations (e.g., agencies must consult on any action ‘‘take’’ prohibitions to the species, and NW Atlantic and Hawaii) at a they authorize, fund, or carry out if authorizes us to issue regulations diminished abundance, which suggests those actions may affect the listed necessary and advisable for the that this species is potentially capable of species or its critical habitat and ensure conservation of the species. Thus, we persisting at a low population size; (3) that such actions do not jeopardize the have flexibility under section 4(d) to there is no evidence of a range species or result in adverse modification tailor protective regulations based on contraction and there is no evidence of or destruction of critical habitat should the needs of and threats to the species. habitat loss or destruction; (4) the it be designated. Examples of Federal The section 4(d) protective regulations overall reduction of the fin trade as well actions that may affect the oceanic may prohibit, with respect to threatened as increasing management regulations whitetip shark include, but are not species, some or all of the acts which will likely reduce the threat of limited to: Alternative energy projects, section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with overutilization to some extent in the discharge of pollution from point respect to endangered species. We are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules 96327

not proposing such regulations at this planned activities within the range of commercial publications; (2) time, but may consider potential the oceanic whitetip shark and their administrative reports, maps or other protective regulations pursuant to possible impact on the species; (6) graphic materials; (3) information section 4(d) for the oceanic whitetip in recent observations or sampling of the received from experts; and (4) a future rulemaking. In order to inform oceanic whitetip shark; and (7) efforts comments from interested parties. our consideration of appropriate being made to protect the oceanic Comments and data particularly are protective regulations for the species, whitetip shark. sought concerning: (1) Maps and we seek information from the public on Public Comments Solicited on Critical specific information describing the the threats to oceanic whitetip shark Habitat amount, distribution, and use type (e.g., and possible measures for their foraging or migration) by the oceanic conservation. We request quantitative evaluations whitetip shark, as well as any additional describing the quality and extent of Role of Peer Review information on occupied and habitats for the oceanic whitetip shark, unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the The intent of the peer review policy as well as information on areas that may reasons why any habitat should or is to ensure that listings are based on the qualify as critical habitat for the species should not be determined to be critical best scientific and commercial data in U.S. waters. Specific areas that habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) available. In December 2004, the Office include the physical and biological and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information of Management and Budget (OMB) features essential to the conservation of regarding the benefits of designating issued a Final Information Quality the species, where such features may particular areas as critical habitat; (4) Bulletin for Peer Review establishing require special management current or planned activities in the areas minimum peer review standards, a considerations or protection, should be that might be proposed for designation transparent process for public identified. Areas outside the occupied and their possible impacts; (5) any disclosure of peer review planning, and geographical area should also be foreseeable economic or other potential opportunities for public participation. identified, if such areas themselves are impacts resulting from designation, and The OMB Bulletin, implemented under essential to the conservation of the in particular, any impacts on small the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. species. ESA implementing regulations entities; (6) whether specific 106–554), is intended to enhance the at 50 CFR 424.12(g) specify that critical unoccupied areas may be essential to quality and credibility of the Federal habitat shall not be designated within provide additional habitat areas for the government’s scientific information, and foreign countries or in other areas conservation of the species; and (7) applies to influential or highly outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, potential peer reviewers for a proposed influential scientific information we request information only on critical habitat designation, including disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. potential areas of critical habitat within persons with biological and economic To satisfy our requirements under the waters under U.S. jurisdiction. expertise relevant to the species, region, OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the and designation of critical habitat. We peer review of the status review report. Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic seek information regarding critical Independent specialists were selected impact, impact on national security, and habitat for the oceanic whitetip shark as from the academic and scientific any other relevant impact’’ of soon as possible, but no later than community for this review. All peer designating a particular area as critical March 29, 2017. reviewer comments were addressed habitat. Section 4(b)(2) also authorizes prior to dissemination of the final status the Secretary to exclude from a critical Public Hearings review report and publication of this habitat designation those particular proposed rule. areas where the Secretary finds that the If requested by the public by February benefits of exclusion outweigh the 13, 2017, hearings will be held Public Comments Solicited on Listing benefits of designation, unless regarding the proposal to list the To ensure that the final action excluding that area will result in oceanic whitetip shark as a threatened resulting from this proposal will be as extinction of the species. For features species under the ESA. If hearings are accurate and effective as possible, we and areas potentially qualifying as requested, details regarding location(s), solicit comments and suggestions from critical habitat, we also request date(s), and time(s) will be published in the public, other governmental agencies, information describing: (1) Activities or a subsequent Federal Register notice. the scientific community, industry, other threats to the essential features or References environmental groups, and any other activities that could be affected by interested parties. Comments are designating them as critical habitat; and A complete list of all references cited encouraged on this proposal (See DATES (2) the positive and negative economic, herein is available upon request (see FOR and ADDRESSES). Specifically, we are national security and other relevant FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). interested in information regarding: (1) impacts, including benefits to the New or updated information regarding recovery of the species, likely to result Classification the range, distribution, and abundance if these areas are designated as critical National Environmental Policy Act of the oceanic whitetip shark; (2) new or habitat. We seek information regarding updated information regarding the the conservation benefits of designating Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts genetics and population structure of the areas within waters under U.S. the information that may be considered oceanic whitetip shark; (3) habitat jurisdiction as critical habitat. In when assessing species for listing and within the range of the oceanic whitetip keeping with the guidance provided by sets the basis upon which listing shark that was present in the past, but OMB (2000; 2003), we seek information determinations must be made. Based on may have been lost over time; (4) new that would allow the monetization of the requirements in section 4(b)(1)(A) of or updated biological or other relevant these effects to the extent possible, as the ESA and the opinion in Pacific Legal data concerning any threats to the well as information on qualitative Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 oceanic whitetip shark (e.g., post-release impacts to economic values. (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded that mortality rates, finning rates in Data reviewed may include, but are ESA listing actions are not subject to the commercial fisheries, etc.); (5) current or not limited to: (1) Scientific or environmental assessment requirements

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 96328 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2016 / Proposed Rules

of the National Environmental Policy provide continuing and meaningful PART 223—THREATENED MARINE Act (NEPA). dialogue on issues of mutual state and AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES Federal interest, this proposed rule will Executive Order 12866, Regulatory be given to the relevant state agencies in Flexibility Act, and Paperwork ■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 each state in which the species is Reduction Act continues to read as follows: believed to occur, and those states will As noted in the Conference Report on be invited to comment on this proposal. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B, the 1982 amendments to the ESA, We have considered, among other § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. economic impacts cannot be considered things, Federal, state, and local 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for when assessing the status of a species. conservation measures. As we proceed, § 223.206(d)(9). Therefore, the economic analysis we intend to continue engaging in ■ 2. In § 223.102, in paragraph (e), add requirements of the Regulatory informal and formal contacts with the a new entry for ‘‘Shark, oceanic Flexibility Act are not applicable to the state, and other affected local or regional whitetip’’ under Fishes in alphabetical listing process. entities, giving careful consideration to order by Common Name to read as In addition, this proposed rule is all written and oral comments received. exempt from review under Executive follows: List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 Order 12866. This proposed rule does § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened not contain a collection-of-information Endangered and threatened species, marine and anadromous species. requirement for the purposes of the Exports, Imports, Transportation. Paperwork Reduction Act. * * * * * Dated: December 22, 2016. (e) * * * Executive Order 13132, Federalism Samuel D Rauch, III, In accordance with E.O. 13132, we Deputy Assistant Administrator for determined that this proposed rule does Regulatory Programs, National Marine not have significant Federalism effects Fisheries Service. and that a Federalism assessment is not For the reasons set out in the required. In keeping with the intent of preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed the Administration and Congress to to be amended as follows:

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

******* FISHES

******* Shark, oceanic whitetip ... Carcharhinus longimanus Entire species ...... [Insert Federal Register NA NA page where the docu- ment begins], [Insert date of publication when published as a final rule].

******* 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).

[FR Doc. 2016–31460 Filed 12–28–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:00 Dec 28, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\29DEP2.SGM 29DEP2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS