Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 66675

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) soliciting scientific and commercial Background 343–9263, email GHGReportingCBI@ information pertaining to this sea snake On July 15, 2013, we received a epa.gov. from any interested party. We find that petition from the WildEarth Guardians Background on Today’s Action. In the petition does not present substantial to list 81 marine species as threatened this action, the EPA is providing notice scientific or commercial information or endangered under the ESA and to that it is extending the comment period indicating that the petitioned action designate critical habitat under the ESA. on the proposed rule titled ‘‘Revisions may be warranted for the remaining five Copies of this petition are available from to Reporting and Recordkeeping species: Eptatretus octatrema, Myxine us (see ADDRESSES). This notice Requirements, and Proposed paucidens, Paramyxine taiwanae, addresses the three hagfishes (Eptatretus Confidentiality Determinations under Aipysurus apraefrontalis, and A. octatrema, Myxine paucidens, and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting foliosquama. Paramyxine taiwanae) and the three sea Program,’’ which was published on DATES: Information and comments on snakes (Aipysurus apraefrontalis, A. September 11, 2013. The current the subject action must be received by foliosquama, and A. fuscus) petitioned deadline for submitting public comment January 6, 2014. for listing. on that rule is November 12, 2013. The Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, EPA is extending that deadline to ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), November 26, 2013. This extension will requires, to the maximum extent provide the general public additional identified by the code NOAA–NMFS- 2013-0150, by any of the following practicable, that within 90 days of time for public participation and receipt of a petition to list a species as comments. methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all threatened or endangered, the Secretary List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 electronic comments via the Federal of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial Environmental protection, eRulemaking Portal. Go to scientific or commercial information Administrative practice and procedure, www.regulations.gov/ indicating that the petitioned action Greenhouse gases, Reporting and #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- may be warranted, and to promptly recordkeeping requirements. 0150, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, publish the finding in the Federal Dated: October 31, 2013. complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When Sarah Dunham, • Mail: Submit written comments to we find that substantial scientific or Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, commercial information in a petition [FR Doc. 2013–26645 Filed 11–5–13; 8:45 am] 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, indicates the petitioned action may be BILLING CODE 6560–50–P MD 20910. warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), • Fax: 301–713–4060, Attn: Lisa we are required to promptly commence Manning. a review of the status of the species DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Instructions: Comments sent by any concerned, which includes conducting a other method, to any other address or comprehensive review of the best National Oceanic and Atmospheric individual, or received after the end of available scientific and commercial Administration the comment period, may not be information. Within 12 months of considered by NMFS. All comments receiving the petition, we must 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 received are a part of the public record conclude the review with a finding as to [Docket No. 130910793–3793–01] and will generally be posted for public whether, in fact, the petitioned action is viewing on www.regulations.gov warranted. Because the finding at the RIN 0648–XC867 without change. All personal identifying 12-month stage is based on a significantly more thorough review of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or the available information, a ‘‘may be 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List warranted’’ finding at the 90-day stage Multiple Species of Hagfish and Sea otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will does not prejudge the outcome of the Snakes as Threatened or Endangered status review. Under the Endangered Species Act be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in Under the ESA, a listing AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the required fields if you wish to remain determination may address a ‘‘species,’’ Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and anonymous), although submitting which is defined to also include Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), comments anonymously will prevent us subspecies and, for any vertebrate Department of Commerce. from contacting you if we have species, any distinct population ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition difficulty retrieving your submission. segment (DPS) that interbreeds when finding; request for information. Attachments to electronic comments mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint will be accepted in Microsoft Word, NOAA–U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90- Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. (USFWS) policy clarifies the agencies’ day finding on a petition to list three Copies of the petition and related interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct species of hagfish and three species of materials are available upon request population segment’’ for the purposes of sea snakes as threatened or endangered from the Director, Office of Protected listing, delisting, and reclassifying a under the Endangered Species Act Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, species under the ESA (‘‘DPS Policy’’; (ESA). We find that the petition presents Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A substantial information indicating that www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ species, subspecies, or DPS is the petitioned action may be warranted petition81.htm. ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of for the sea snake, A. fuscus. We will extinction throughout all or a significant conduct a status review of this species FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if to determine if the petitioned action is Manning, Office of Protected Resources, it is likely to become endangered within warranted. To ensure that the status 301–427–8466. the foreseeable future throughout all or review is comprehensive, we are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a significant portion of its range (ESA

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:07 Nov 05, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 66676 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules

sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 90-day finding stage, so long as it is governmental organizations, such as the U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the reliable and a reasonable person would International Union for Conservation of ESA and our implementing regulations, conclude that it supports the Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries the determination of whether a species petitioner’s assertions. Conclusive Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of is threatened or endangered shall be information indicating the species may extinction risk for a species. Risk based on any one or a combination of meet the ESA’s requirements for listing classifications by other organizations or the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: is not required to make a positive 90- made under other Federal or state the present or threatened destruction, day finding. We will not conclude that statutes may be informative, but such modification, or curtailment of habitat a lack of specific information alone classification alone may not provide the or range; overutilization for commercial, negates a positive 90-day finding, if a rationale for a positive 90-day finding recreational, scientific, or educational reasonable person would conclude that under the ESA. For example, as purposes; disease or predation; the unknown information itself suggests explained by NatureServe, their inadequacy of existing regulatory an extinction risk of concern for the assessments of a species’ conservation mechanisms; and any other natural or species at issue. status do ‘‘not constitute a manmade factors affecting the species’ To make a 90-day finding on a recommendation by NatureServe for existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR petition to list a species, we evaluate listing under the U.S. Endangered 424.11(c)). whether the petition presents Species Act’’ because NatureServe ESA-implementing regulations issued substantial scientific or commercial assessments ‘‘have different criteria, jointly by NMFS and the USFWS (50 information indicating the subject evidence requirements, purposes and CFR 424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial species may be either threatened or taxonomic coverage than government information’’ in the context of reviewing endangered, as defined by the ESA. lists of endangered and threatened a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a First, we evaluate whether the species, and therefore these two types of species as the amount of information information presented in the petition, lists should not be expected to that would lead a reasonable person to along with the information readily coincide’’ (http://www.natureserve.org/ believe that the measure proposed in the available in our files, indicates that the prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). petition may be warranted. When petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ Thus, when a petition cites such evaluating whether substantial eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, classifications, we will evaluate the information is contained in a petition, we evaluate whether the information source of information that the we must consider whether the petition: indicates that the species at issue faces classification is based upon in light of (1) Clearly indicates the administrative extinction risk that is cause for concern; the standards of the ESA and our measure recommended and gives the this may be indicated in information policies as described above. scientific and any common name of the expressly discussing the species’ status With respect to the six species species involved; (2) contains detailed and trends, or in information describing discussed in this finding, the petitioner narrative justification for the impacts and threats to the species. We relies almost exclusively on the risk recommended measure, describing, evaluate any information on specific classifications of the IUCN as the source based on available information, past and demographic factors pertinent to of information on the status of each present numbers and distribution of the evaluating extinction risk for the species petitioned species. All of the petitioned species involved and any threats faced at issue (e.g., population abundance and species are listed as ‘‘endangered’’ or by the species; (3) provides information trends, productivity, spatial structure, ‘‘critically endangered’’ on the IUCN regarding the status of the species over age structure, sex ratio, diversity, Redlist, and the petitioner notes this as all or a significant portion of its range; current and historical range, habitat an explicit consideration in offering and (4) is accompanied by the integrity or fragmentation), and the petitions on these species. Species appropriate supporting documentation potential contribution of identified classifications under the IUCN and the in the form of bibliographic references, demographic risks to extinction risk for ESA are not equivalent, and the data reprints of pertinent publications, the species. We then evaluate the standards, evaluation criteria, and copies of reports or letters from potential links between these treatment of uncertainty are also not authorities, and maps (50 CFR demographic risks and the causative necessarily the same. 424.14(b)(2)). impacts and threats identified in section At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the 4(a)(1). Species Descriptions petitioner’s request based upon the Information presented on impacts or Hagfishes information in the petition including its threats should be specific to the species references, and the information readily and should reasonably suggest that one Hagfish are marine, jawless, scaleless, available in our files. We do not conduct or more of these factors may be worm-like fishes found mainly in additional research, and we do not operative threats that act or have acted temperate seas. They are typically found solicit information from parties outside on the species to the point that it may in association with soft bottom (mud the agency to help us in evaluating the warrant protection under the ESA. and sand) habitats, but some species petition. We will accept the petitioner’s Broad statements about generalized also occur in hard bottom or rocky sources and characterizations of the threats to the species, or identification habitats. Designed more for burrowing information presented, if they appear to of factors that could negatively impact than swimming, they lack paired fins or be based on accepted scientific a species, do not constitute substantial appendages, have degenerate eyes, and principles, unless we have specific information that listing may be probably spend much of their time information in our files that indicates warranted. We look for information within the bottom substrate (Moyle and the petition’s information is incorrect, indicating that not only is the particular Cech, 2000). One notable, external unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise species exposed to a factor, but that the feature is their three pairs of barbels or irrelevant to the requested action. species may be responding in a negative tentacles around their mouth and nostril Information that is susceptible to more fashion; then we assess the potential that serve a tactile function. Along their than one interpretation or that is significance of that negative response. sides are 1–15 gill openings and a series contradicted by other available Many petitions identify risk of pores that serve as openings for information will not be dismissed at the classifications made by non- mucus glands. These glands secrete

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:07 Nov 05, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 66677

large amounts of mucus, or slime, that petitioned sea snakes prey on various and natural factors—which we discuss hagfish use to coat their body as a fishes, such as wrasses, gobies and eels, in turn below. means of deterring predators. Hagfish subduing their prey with venom before In terms of habitat destruction, the can also ‘‘slime’’ their food items, consuming them. Based on sonic petition focuses on human population thereby making them unpalatable to tracking, mapping, and mark-recapture growth and associated consequences other scavengers. Hagfish feed on soft- studies, a relatively widely distributed (e.g., pollution, tourism, development) bodied invertebrates within or at the congener, A. laevis, was shown to have as the main drivers of the destruction of surface of the bottom sediments, but are a very small home range—on the order hagfish habitat. The petition states that also quick to scavenge dead fish and of 0.15 to 0.18 hectares (Marsh et al., ‘‘Increased economic growth in coastal whales. Females lay a small number 1994); presumably the three petitioned cities is a major cause of ocean habitat (20–30) of large (2 cm–3 cm) leathery aipysurids have similarly small home destruction’’ and that ‘‘. . . human eggs that are attached to each other and ranges. The petition indicates that the population growth represents a serious the bottom (Moyle and Cech, 2000). lifespan of the three petitioned sea threat to the petitioned species.’’ Some Little else is known about their snakes is about 8 to 10 years, and age of the associated consequences of reproduction (Moyle and Cech, 2000). at first maturity ranges from about 2 to human population growth are discussed Small morphological differences 5 years. further; however, specific information to between populations do suggest that link these general threats to hagfish Analysis of the Petition they tend to breed locally (Pough et al., habitats or impacts to hagfish habitat is 1996). There are over 40 extant species The petition clearly indicates the lacking. For example, the petition in six genera around the world (Pough administrative measure recommended discusses the increase in the number et al., 1996). and gives the scientific and common and size of ‘‘dead zones’’ (i.e., areas of names of the species involved. Based on very low levels of dissolved oxygen) Sea Snakes the information presented in the worldwide, but no information is Sea snakes occur throughout the petition, along with the information provided to indicate whether and to warm regions of the Pacific and Indian readily available in our files, we find what extent any dead zones overlap Oceans but are absent from the Atlantic. that each of the 6 petitioned species with or affect the habitats of the There are more than 60 described constitutes a valid ‘‘species’’ eligible for petitioned species. species, but the taxonomy of sea snakes listing under the ESA as each is The petition also discusses the remains controversial (Davenport, considered a valid taxonomic species. particular threat of trawling and asserts 2011). The three petitioned sea snake The petition also contains a narrative that it threatens the habitat of all three species are all within the genus justification for the recommended hagfish species. We agree with the Aipysurus and, according to the measures and provides limited statements in the petition that trawling petition, occur within narrow ranges off information on the species’ geographic results in disturbance of benthic the northern coast of Australia. More distribution, habitat, and threats. For the substrates, can lead to changes in than 30 species of sea snakes, roughly hagfishes, no information is provided community composition, and can half of which are endemic, occur in regarding the three species’ past or increase some species’ vulnerability to northern Australia (Marsh et al., 1994). present numbers, or population status predation. However, these are general Within the wider Indo-Pacific region, and trends for all or a significant portion statements, and no additional there is considerable overlap in the of the species’ ranges. For the sea information is provided in the petition ranges of sea snake species and a high snakes, some past and present relative or references to indicate the mechanism degree of niche separation based on diet abundance data and provisional by which hagfish may be impacted by (Davenport, 2011; citing Voris and abundance data are provided. trawling activities. Hagfish apparently Voris, 1983). Supporting documentation was occur mainly within the sediments and Visually, sea snakes are easily provided, mainly in the form of IUCN are opportunistic feeders that may even distinguished from terrestrial snakes by species assessments. We had no benefit from commercial fisheries’ their laterally compressed, paddle-like information in our files for any of the discards and the resulting increase in tail. However, identification of sea petitioned hagfish, but did have some food availability (Moyle and Cech, snakes to species can be challenging due limited information on the sea snake 2000). It is unclear given the to variable coloration and pattern genus. A synopsis of our analysis of the information available on the diet, (Miller and Abdulquader, 2009). information provided in the petition habitat, and behavior of hagfishes, Multiple physical characteristics (e.g., and readily available in our files is whether hagfish experience negative number of mid-body scale rows) and the provided below. Following the format of impacts, positive impacts, or both, as a capture locations are required to make the petition, we first discuss the result of trawling and other commercial a positive species identification (Miller introductory information presented for fishing activities. and Abdulquader, 2009). each group of species and then discuss In terms of overutilization, the Aipysurid sea snakes are entirely the species-specific information. petition asserts that both bycatch of aquatic, shallow-water species typically hagfish and commercial harvest present associated with coral reefs. Aipysurids Threats to the Hagfishes threats to the three petitioned hagfishes. are also viviparous (i.e., give birth to The three hagfish species petitioned No data or information, however, are live young), unlike the amphibious sea for listing (Eptatretus octatrema, Myxine presented on whether or to what extent kraits, which lay their eggs on land. Sea paucidens, and Paramyxine taiwanae) bycatch of any of the three hagfish snakes, in general, tend to carry smaller are currently listed as either species is occurring or has occurred. clutches of eggs than terrestrial snakes ‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘critically The fate of by-caught hagfish is also not of the same size, and this is especially endangered’’ on the IUCN Red List. The discussed. The petition presents true of the aipysurids (Marsh et al., petition asserts that these species are commercial harvest of hagfish as a 1994). There is no parental care of being threatened with extinction by four future threat that will arise as other fish young, which must surface to breathe of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors— stocks decline and new species are and forage for food just as adults do habitat destruction, overutilization, targeted to meet the rising demand for (Miller and Abdulquadar, 2009). The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, fish by a growing human population.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:07 Nov 05, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 66678 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules

However, this is a general statement that hermaphrodites (Mincarone, 2011a, specimens have been documented in could apply to many marine fishes, and 2011b; Mincarone and Mok, 2011); over 100 years despite what appears to there is no additional information with however, whether and the extent to be heavy sampling efforts, it is likely which to substantiate the alleged which the petitioned species reproduce this species is no longer extant in the likelihood of this potential, future threat through self-fertilization is not known. wild. The IUCN assessment notes that to any of the petitioned hagfish species. The condition of being rare is an further research is needed ‘‘to determine The petition states that no important factor to consider when if this species still maintains a viable conservation measures are in place for evaluating a species’ risk of extinction; population’’ (Mincarone, 2011a). The any of the petitioned hagfishes and that however, it does not by itself indicate purpose of the ESA is to conserve ESA listings are needed to prevent their the likelihood of extinction of that species that are in danger of or extinction. Information regarding any species, nor does the condition of being threatened with extinction. Section 3(6) related regulatory measures being rare constitute substantial information of the ESA defines an endangered implemented within the ranges of any of that listing under the ESA may be species as ‘‘any species which is in the three hagfishes is not provided. We warranted. For example, some species danger of extinction throughout all or a do not necessarily consider a lack of naturally occur in small numbers but significant portion of its range’’ species-specific protections a threat to are not considered threatened or (emphasis added). Species that are the particular species. For example, endangered. To determine whether already extinct are not protected by the management measures that regulate listing of a rare species may be ESA. Given this information and the other species, activities (e.g., warranted, there must also be discussion above regarding general commercial fisheries), or areas may substantial information indicating the threats to hagfish, we conclude that the indirectly function to minimize threats rare species is both exposed to and petition does not present substantial to the petitioned species. As stated responding in a negative fashion to a information indicating that E. octatrema previously, we look for substantial threat such that the species may be may warrant listing as threatened or information indicating that not only is threatened with extinction. endangered under the ESA. the particular species exposed to a Overall, we find that the general factor, but that the species may be threats discussed for the hagfishes are Myxine paucidens responding in a negative fashion; then not clearly or causally linked to the This species is known from only five we assess the potential significance of petitioned species or their ranges or museum specimens collected from that negative response. habitat (e.g., discussion of trawling Sagami Bay and just south of Tokyo The petition specifically points to the impacts to sea floor habitat in Bay, Japan. No specimens have been lack of a listing under CITES (the Australia). While some of the collected since 1972 despite ‘‘extensive Convention on International Trade in information in this introductory section scientific surveying in the area,’’ and the Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and suggests concern for the status of many species ‘‘may possibly be already Flora) as a threat to the petitioned marine species generally, its broadness, extinct’’ (Mincarone, 2011b). The hagfishes. We agree with the statement generality, and/or speculative nature, petition provides no information on past in the petition that the absence of a and the failure of the petitioner to make or present numbers or population CITES listing for a given species is not reasonable connections between the trends, nor is any information available evidence that the same species does not threats and the status of the individual in our files. The most recent IUCN warrant the protections of the ESA. petitioned species means that we cannot assessment states that ‘‘there are no However, we find nothing to find that this information reasonably known direct threats to this species’’ but substantiate the statement in the suggests that one or more of these threat that habitat quality is declining as a petition that ‘‘. . . the absence of CITES factors may be operative threats that act result of extensive trawling in the area listing is problematic’’ for the three or have acted on any of the petitioned where the specimens were found. No hagfish species. CITES is a tool to species to the point that they may additional information is provided or manage and regulate international trade warrant protection under the ESA. available to evaluate the effect trawling in situations where trade has been There is little information in this has on this hagfish or its habitat. Given identified as a threat to the particular introductory section indicating that this information as well as the previous species’ survival in the wild. No particular petitioned species may be discussion about general threats to information on international trade of responding in a negative fashion to any hagfish, we conclude that the petition any of the petitioned hagfishes is of the discussed threats. Therefore, we does not present substantial information presented in the petition or available to find that the information in this section indicating that M. paucidens may us, and we do not have any information does not constitute substantial warrant listing as threatened or regarding direct harvest of these hagfish information that listing may be endangered under the ESA. species. warranted for any of the petitioned Paramyxine taiwanae Lastly, the petition asserts that the species. three hagfish species are threatened as Population trends, abundance data a result of their rarity, in particular Eptatretus octatrema and status information are not available because it reduces their chances of This hagfish is known from two type for this species. This species is known finding mates. This statement is not specimens—one collected in 1899 and from approximately 150 specimens substantiated with any additional the other in 1900 (Mincarone, 2011a). collected over an unknown or information regarding hagfish mating Both specimens were collected off Cape unspecified time period. The species behavior, reproduction, or natural Saint Blaize, South Africa. Despite apparently has a very small range of densities. Very little is known about ‘‘extensive surveys’’ within the range of 3,750 sq km off northeastern Taiwan hagfish mating (Pough et al., 1996). this species, no other specimens have (see Mincarone and Mok, 2011). The Hagfish are relatively mobile, however, been recorded (Mincarone, 2011a). No most recent IUCN assessment states that and may be able to travel to locate mates information is provided in the petition heavy surveying has ‘‘. . . confirmed within a certain range. The petitioned or available to us regarding the past or that it [P. taiwanae] is not found in hagfishes also possess both male and present numbers or status of this southwestern Taiwan nor along the east female gonads and may function as species. Given that no confirmed coast’’; however, in a later section, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:07 Nov 05, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 66679

assessment discusses a study of ‘‘. . . The petition asserts that ‘‘drastic provided to substantiate the statement specimens from the southwestern declines and possible extinction’’ of the in the petition that any the three sea Taiwan examined by Kuo et al. (1994) petitioned sea snakes have occurred as snake species may potentially or . . .’’ (Mincarone and Mok, 2011). Thus, a result of anthropogenic climate change presently be subject to international the actual extent of occurrence of this and the consequent destruction of their trade. In fact, the references provided by species is unclear. habitat. The petition states that climate the petitioner indicate that none of the This species occurs at depths of 120– change can increase sea surface petitioned sea snakes are targeted by 427 m on the continental shelf and temperatures to levels that are fatal to fisheries and there is no evidence of upper slope (Mincarone and Mok, the sea snakes and can cause ‘‘massive illegal fishing (Lukoschek and Guinea, 2011). The petition states this species is damage’’ to the coral reefs that these 2010; Lukoschek et al., 2010a; vulnerable to habitat loss as a result of species require as habitat. The petition Lukoschek et al., 2010b). deep sea trawling and trapping; specifically refers to coral bleaching as The petition discusses how all three however, no additional information, the mechanism by which climate of the petitioned sea snakes have very references or statements are provided change destroys the habitat of the small geographic ranges and limited indicating the habitat requirements of petitioned sea snakes. The petition dispersal ability. A very small range this hagfish or how its particular habitat claims that when severe bleaching increases the extinction risk of the is being damaged or curtailed by events occur, the sea snakes’ ‘‘only species because the entire species could trawling and trapping within its range. available habitat is destroyed.’’ be affected by local events. Also, limited The petition also states that this However, it is unclear, given the dispersal ability can decrease the species is vulnerable to bycatch and available information, whether and to potential for recolonization following that, due to its relatively large body size, what extent the petitioned sea snakes the loss of a subpopulation or area of faces an increased risk that ‘‘it will be are actually unable to continue to use habitat. Thus, these natural factors can influence the species’ risk of extinction. intentionally exploited in the future for the coral structure as habitat should a Despite this, we do not consider these food and the leather industry.’’ The bleaching event occur. Increased sea surface temperatures natural factors alone to constitute petition states that these ‘‘pressures and coral bleaching are plausible causes substantial information that listing threaten the species’ continued of sea snake habitat degradation, but the under the ESA may be warranted. There survival.’’ However, no information on petitioner’s conclusion that these factors must be additional information to past or present bycatch rates or fisheries are causing the decline of the sea snakes indicate that the species may be interactions is provided, nor is any is overstated. References provided by exposed to and respond in a negative available in our files. Also, as the petitioner state that climate change fashion to a threat. However, in the case mentioned previously, no additional may be a threat to some sea snake of A. fuscus, which we discuss further information is available with which to species (Lukoschek and Guinea, 2010; below, information is presented to substantiate the potential future threat Lukoschek et al., 2010a; Lukoschek et suggest that the petitioned species may of direct harvest of this hagfish. The al., 2010b). In addition, the IUCN have been extirpated from some areas, IUCN assessment recommends that assessment for A. apraefrontalis states: and restricted dispersal among more research is needed to understand ‘‘There are no specific, clearly identified remaining subpopulations may be this species’ biology, population size, or quantified past, current or future contributing to the extinction risk of this and the impact of trapping and trawling threats to A. apreafrontalis or any other species. (Mincarone and Mok, 2011). reef-associated sea snake species . . .’’ Overall, we find that the three major Overall, the species-specific (Lukoschek et al., 2010a). threats discussed for sea snakes are not information provided in the petition for The petition asserts that the three sea well supported and/or substantiated and P. taiwanae is general and/or snake species are also declining as a do not constitute substantial speculative in nature, and we cannot result of inadequate regulatory information that listing of any of the find that this information reasonably mechanisms. Information on the three species may be warranted. suggests that one or more of the threat existing regulatory protections that A. apraefrontalis factors may be operative threats that act directly or may indirectly benefit these or have acted on the petitioned species species, however, is not provided This sea snake has been recorded to the point that it may warrant beyond a discussion of the Ashmore from only Ashmore and Hibernia Reefs protection under the ESA. We conclude Reef Nature Reserve. This nature off northwestern Australia, and so its that the petition and the single, reserve, located off the coast of area of occurrence is estimated to be available reference do not present northwestern Australia, was established only about 10 sq km (Lukoschek et al., substantial information indicating this in 1983 and contains a portion of all 2010a). The IUCN assessment for this species may warrant listing as three species’ known habitat. Given that species, indicates that, despite extensive threatened or endangered. the threats to the sea snakes are surveys, no individual of this species has been recorded on either Ashmore or Threats to the Sea Snakes unknown, it is unclear what level of protection the reserve may be providing Hibernia reef since 2000 (Lukoschek et The three sea snake species petitioned them. The petition also asserts that the al., 2010a; citing Guinea 2006, 2007 and for listing (Aipysurus apraefrontalis, A. absence of a CITES listing for the Lukoschek, pers. comm., 2009). The foliosquama, and A. fuscus) are petitioned sea snakes is ‘‘problematic’’ IUCN assessment refers to this species currently listed as either ‘‘endangered’’ because they ‘‘may be subject to as ‘‘locally extinct’’ and notes it has not or ‘‘critically endangered’’ on the IUCN international trade presently or in the been seen at any other location Red List. The petition asserts that these future.’’ Information in our files (Lukoschek et al., 2010a). As stated species are being threatened with indicates that sea snakes are consumed previously, species that are not known extinction by three of the five ESA and/or valued for their leather in some to exist in the wild are not protected by section 4(a)(1) factors—habitat parts of the world, and sea snake the ESA. Given this information as well destruction, inadequacy of regulatory products have been traded as the deficiencies of the threats mechanisms, and natural factors— internationally since the 1930’s (Marsh information discussed above, we which we discuss in turn below. et al., 1994). However, no information is conclude that the petition and the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:07 Nov 05, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 66680 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules

available references do not present (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). No threats Information Solicited substantial information indicating that have been clearly identified for this A. apraefrontalis may warrant listing as species, but based on surveys on some To ensure that the status review is threatened or endangered under the of the reefs, the species appears to have based on the best available scientific ESA. declined by at least 70% since 1998 and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the sea A. foliosquama (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). Surveys indicate that sightings rates of A. fuscus snake, A. fuscus, may warrant listing as Similar to A. apraefrontalis, this are variable over time, but an overall threatened or endangered. Specifically, species has been found only on declining trend in sightings rates has we are soliciting data and information, Ashmore and Hibernia Reefs off been observed since 1998 at Ashmore including unpublished data and northwestern Australia in an area of reef (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). It is information, in the following areas: (1) about 10 sq km (Lukoschek and Guinea, unclear what the trends in sightings Historical and current distribution and 2010). Citing Guinea (2006; 2007) and rates of A. fuscus are at the other reefs. abundance of this species throughout its Lukoschek (pers. comm. 2009), the The IUCN assessment mentions ‘‘local range; (2) historical and current IUCN assessment for this species states extinctions,’’ but it is also unclear where population trends; (3) life history and that no single individual of this species these ‘‘local extinctions’’ have occurred. has been seen over the past 9 years, or habitat requirements (4) genetics of However, the available information does subpopulations; (5) past, current and approximately 2 generations, despite suggest that some subpopulations or extensive surveys of both Ashmore and future threats to the species, including areas of the range have experienced any current or planned activities that Hibernia Reefs (Lukoschek and Guinea, significant declines or may have been 2010). The IUCN assessment also refers may adversely impact the species; (6) lost. Given the likelihood that dispersal ongoing or planned efforts to protect to the ‘‘local extinction’’ of this species is fairly restricted for this species, the and restore the species and its habitat; and notes that it also has not been loss of certain reef subpopulations and (7) management, regulatory, and sighted at any other location (Lukoschek increases the extinction risk for this enforcement information. We request and Guinea, 2010). Thus, the best species. We find the significant decline available information suggests this in abundance and potential loss of that all information be accompanied by: species may no longer be extant in the subpopulations cause for concern and (a) Supporting documentation such as wild. As stated previously, species that substantial information that listing of A. maps, bibliographic references, or are not known to exist in the wild are fuscus under the ESA may be reprints of pertinent publications; and not protected by the ESA. Considering warranted. (b) the submitter’s name, address, and this information as well as the any association, institution, or business deficiencies of the threats information Petition Finding that the person represents. discussed above, we conclude that the petition and the available references do After reviewing the information References Cited not present substantial information contained in the petition, as well as indicating that A. apraefrontalis may information readily available in our A complete list of references is warrant listing as threatened or files, we conclude the petition does not available upon request to the Office of endangered under the ESA. present substantial scientific or Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES). commercial information indicating the A. fuscus Authority: The authority for this action is petitioned action may be warranted for the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as This species occurs on Ashmore, Eptatretus octatrema, Myxine amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Hibernia, Cartier, Scott and paucidens, Paramyxine taiwanae, A. Serangipatan Reefs in the Timor Sea apraefrontalis and A. foliosquama. In Dated: October 30, 2013. between northwestern Australia and contrast, as described above, we find Alan D. Risenhoover, Timor (Lukoschek et al., 2010b). Very that there is substantial scientific Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, little movement of A. fuscus is thought information indicating the petitioned performing the functions and duties of the to occur among these reefs (Lukoschek action may be warranted for A. fuscus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for et al., 2010b). This species has a and we hereby announce the initiation Regulatory Programs, National Marine relatively shallow depth range of up to of a status review for this species to Fisheries Service. 25–30 m deep and a total estimated area determine whether the petition action is [FR Doc. 2013–26493 Filed 11–5–13; 8:45 am] of occurrence of only 500 sq km warranted. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:07 Nov 05, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1