80 FR 16356 - Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions To List Porbeagle Sharks

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 59 (March 27, 2015)

Page Range		16356-16358
FR Document		2015-07073

We, NMFS, are accepting two 2010 petitions to list porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. This action is being taken in response to a December 12, 2014, U.S. District Court decision that our previous rejection of the petitions in 2010 was arbitrary and capricious. To ensure a comprehensive review, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information relevant to the status of porbeagle sharks worldwide. We will publish the results of that review and will make a finding as to whether the petitioned action is or is not warranted on or before December 12, 2015.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16356-16358]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07073]

[[Page 16356]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 150122069-5272-01]
RIN 0648-XD740

Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Two
Petitions To List Porbeagle Sharks

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: 90-day petition finding; request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are accepting two 2010 petitions to list porbeagle
sharks (Lamna nasus) on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
This action is being taken in response to a December 12, 2014, U.S.
District Court decision that our previous rejection of the petitions in
2010 was arbitrary and capricious. To ensure a comprehensive review, we
are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information
relevant to the status of porbeagle sharks worldwide. We will publish
the results of that review and will make a finding as to whether the
petitioned action is or is not warranted on or before December 12,
2015.

DATES: Written comments, data and information related to this petition
finding must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on May 12,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0013, by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2015-0013,
2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields
3. Enter or attach your comments.
- OR -
Mail: Submit written comments to Assistant Regional Administrator,
Protected Resources Division, Attn: Porbeagle Shark Status Review,
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public
record and will generally be posted without change for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov. All personal identifying information (e.g.,
name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A''
in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
The petitions and other pertinent information are also available
electronically on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/pcp/soc/porbeagle_shark.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS, Greater
Atlantic Region, (978) 281-9328; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, HQ, (301) 427-
8469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

We received a petition from Wild Earth Guardians (WEG) dated
January 20, 2010, requesting that we list porbeagle sharks (Lamna
nasus) throughout their entire range, or as Northwest Atlantic,
Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean Distinct Population Segments
(DPS) under the ESA, as well as designate critical habitat for the
species. We also received a petition from the Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS), dated January 21, 2010, requesting that we list a
Northwest Atlantic DPS of porbeagle sharks as endangered in the North
Atlantic under the ESA. Information contained in the petitions focused
on the species' imperilment due to historical and continued
overfishing; modification of habitat through pollution, climate change,
and ocean acidification; failure of regulatory mechanisms; and low
productivity of the species.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
practicable, within 90 days after receiving a petition, the Secretary
make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (90-
day finding). The ESA implementing regulations for NMFS define
``substantial information'' as the amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). If a positive 90-day
finding is made, then we must promptly conduct a review of the status
of the species concerned and publish a finding indicating whether the
petitioned action is or is not warranted within one year (1-year
finding).
On July 12, 2010, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal
Register (75 FR 39656; http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/frnotices/negative90d/porbeagle_shark_75_fr_39656.pdf) stating that neither
petition presented substantial information indicating that listing
porbeagle sharks may be warranted. Accordingly, a status review of the
species was not initiated.
In August 2011, the petitioners filed complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia challenging our denial of
the petitions (Case 1:11-cv-01414-BJR HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED
STATES v. BLANK et al.). On November 14, 2014, the court published a
Memorandum Opinion vacating the 2010 90-day finding for porbeagle
shark, and ordering NMFS to prepare a new 90-day finding. The court
entered final judgment on December 12, 2014. This document represents
our new 90-day finding.
Given the length of time between when we received the petitions in
2010 and this new 90-day finding, we have taken into account both
information submitted with and referenced in the petitions as well as
all other new information readily available in our files regarding
porbeagle sharks globally. We have thoroughly reviewed the Court's
Memorandum Opinion, the 2010 petitions and all other information
available in our files in preparing our new finding. As we did in 2010,
we consulted with experts within the Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office's Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS' Highly
Migratory Species Management Division, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center- Apex Predator Program, and the Southeast Fisheries Science
Center in November and December 2014 to provide context for the
petitions and the information in our files.

The 2010 Petitions and New Information on Porbeagle Sharks

Both petitions clearly identified themselves as petitions and
included the identification information for the petitioner, as required
in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petitions indicated their recommended
administrative measure and gave the scientific and common names for
porbeagle sharks. The WEG petition requested that we list under the ESA
porbeagle sharks throughout their entire range. Alternatively, the WEG
petition proposed that porbeagle be listed under the ESA as three
distinct population segments (DPSs) as follows: The Northwest Atlantic
DPS, the

[[Page 16357]]

Northeast Atlantic DPS and the Mediterranean DPS. The petition states
``the species and DPSs face threats from historic and continued
overfishing, as well as a low reproduction rate, which hinders its
recovery.'' The information contained in the WEG petition focuses on
historical and continued overfishing of the above named DPSs of
porbeagle sharks globally. The HSUS petition only addresses a Northwest
Atlantic DPS of porbeagle sharks, requesting they be listed as
endangered in the Northwest Atlantic.
Several new references were available in our files since remand
that were not available when the 2010 petitions were received. In 2009,
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
conducted a stock assessment for porbeagle sharks (ICES/ICCAT, 2009).
The information in this report was considered in our 2010 90-day
finding, and this report continues to be a good source of recent,
comprehensive porbeagle shark data. However, there is a new Canadian
assessment for the Northwest Atlantic stock based on information
contained in Campana et al. 2012 (2012 Canadian assessment). Also,
other new information is contained in recent ICCAT proceedings,
regulatory documents, published literature and FR notices since the
ICES/ICCAT 2009 stock assessment (Andrushchenko et al./Canada, 2014;
Bendall et al., 2013; Campana et al., 2012; Canada/ICCAT, 2014; CPC/
ICCAT, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2014; Kitamura and Matsunaga, 2010;
Marua et al., 2012; NEAFC/ICCAT, 2013; NMFS/HMS, 2013; SCRS, 2014;
Semba et al., 2013; 75 FR 250; 79 FR 75068; 50 CFR part 635).
Additionally, several new management actions were implemented or
became effective prior to remand, but after the 2010 petitions were
received. These include the addition of porbeagle sharks to Appendix II
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, a 2013 prohibition on directed fishing for porbeagle
in Canada and increasing protections in the European Union (EU) which
will more closely regulate trade of the species.
In 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) published a new assessment and status report on
porbeagle sharks in Canada. The report reaffirms COSEWIC's designation
of the species as ``endangered'' due to COSEWIC criterion A2b under the
Species at Risk Act. The report states the species meets this criterion
``because the abundance of mature females has declined by 74-77% over
the past 2.6 generations. Although the directed fishery has been
suspended, the species continues to be taken as bycatch in a variety of
other fisheries.'' As noted throughout the report, the species decline
has halted, and while numbers of porbeagle remain low compared to pre-
exploitation levels, the information does indicate the species trend is
stable. The report states that in Canada, the ``greatest current threat
to porbeagle is overfishing due to multiple bycatch fisheries, which
are not closely monitored, where a large portion of the catch may be
discarded and unreported.'' While this report is an update of a 2004
COSEWIC report, relied upon by the petitioners, which also assessed
porbeagle as endangered based on the decline that the species has
experienced, the emphasis the new status report places on the potential
threat to the species from ongoing, unregulated bycatch in Canada is of
concern and represents new information not previously considered. A
status review is the appropriate means for assessing this potential
threat.
COSEWIC also provides information on whether the Northwest Atlantic
stock constitutes a single designatable unit. The report indicates that
the Northeast and Northwest populations of porbeagle sharks are
separate. This conclusion appears to be based solely on conventional
tagging information, consistent with the petitions, and does not appear
to incorporate any information from genetic studies. In our 2010
finding, we concluded, based on genetic information, that porbeagle
from the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic are not discrete. While we
believe genetics are a more reliable indicator of discreteness than
tagging information, we recognize the uncertainty about the existence
of discrete populations. The appropriate means for addressing this
uncertainty is to consider the information in a review of the status of
the species.

Petition Finding

In light of the information described above, which indicates that
the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are accepting the petitions
and initiating a review of the status of the species.

Information Solicited

To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting
information concerning porbeagle sharks. We request information from
the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes,
the scientific community, conservation groups, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of
porbeagle sharks.
Specifically, we are soliciting information, including unpublished
information, in the following areas: (1) Historical and current
distribution and abundance of porbeagle sharks throughout their range;
(2) historical and current population trends for porbeagle sharks; (3)
life history and habitat requirements of porbeagle ; (4) genetics and
population structure information (including morphology, ecology,
behavior, etc.) for populations of porbeagle; (5) past, current, and
future threats to porbeagle, including any current or planned
activities that may adversely impact the species; (6) ongoing or
planned efforts to protect and restore porbeagle and their habitat; and
(7) management, regulatory, and enforcement information pertaining to
porbeagle. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1)
Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name,
address, and any association, institution, or business that the person
represents.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs that a
determination must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.'' On or before December 12, 2015, we
will issue a 12-month determination based on a review of the best
scientific and commercial data available, including all relevant
information received from the public in response to this 90-day
finding.
You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that in our
final determination we may not consider comments we receive after the
date specified in the DATES section. If you submit your information via
http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission including personal
identifying information will be posted on the Web site. If your
submission is made via hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 16358]]

Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.

Authority

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: March 23, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07073 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16357

Northeast Atlantic DPS and the mature females has declined by 74–77% scientific community, conservation
Mediterranean DPS. The petition states over the past 2.6 generations. Although groups, industry, or any other interested
‘‘the species and DPSs face threats from the directed fishery has been parties concerning the current and/or
historic and continued overfishing, as suspended, the species continues to be historical status of porbeagle sharks.
well as a low reproduction rate, which taken as bycatch in a variety of other Specifically, we are soliciting
hinders its recovery.’’ The information fisheries.’’ As noted throughout the information, including unpublished
contained in the WEG petition focuses report, the species decline has halted, information, in the following areas: (1)
on historical and continued overfishing and while numbers of porbeagle remain Historical and current distribution and
of the above named DPSs of porbeagle low compared to pre-exploitation levels, abundance of porbeagle sharks
sharks globally. The HSUS petition only the information does indicate the throughout their range; (2) historical
addresses a Northwest Atlantic DPS of species trend is stable. The report states and current population trends for
porbeagle sharks, requesting they be that in Canada, the ‘‘greatest current porbeagle sharks; (3) life history and
listed as endangered in the Northwest threat to porbeagle is overfishing due to habitat requirements of porbeagle ; (4)
Atlantic. multiple bycatch fisheries, which are genetics and population structure
Several new references were available not closely monitored, where a large information (including morphology,
in our files since remand that were not portion of the catch may be discarded ecology, behavior, etc.) for populations
available when the 2010 petitions were and unreported.’’ While this report is an of porbeagle; (5) past, current, and
received. In 2009, the International update of a 2004 COSEWIC report, future threats to porbeagle, including
Council for the Exploration of the Sea relied upon by the petitioners, which any current or planned activities that
(ICES) and the International also assessed porbeagle as endangered may adversely impact the species; (6)
Commission for the Conservation of based on the decline that the species has ongoing or planned efforts to protect
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) conducted a experienced, the emphasis the new and restore porbeagle and their habitat;
stock assessment for porbeagle sharks status report places on the potential and (7) management, regulatory, and
(ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The information in threat to the species from ongoing, enforcement information pertaining to
this report was considered in our 2010 unregulated bycatch in Canada is of porbeagle. We request that all
90-day finding, and this report concern and represents new information information be accompanied by: (1)
continues to be a good source of recent, not previously considered. A status Supporting documentation such as
comprehensive porbeagle shark data. review is the appropriate means for maps, bibliographic references, or
However, there is a new Canadian assessing this potential threat. reprints of pertinent publications; and
assessment for the Northwest Atlantic COSEWIC also provides information (2) the submitter’s name, address, and
stock based on information contained in on whether the Northwest Atlantic stock any association, institution, or business
Campana et al. 2012 (2012 Canadian constitutes a single designatable unit. that the person represents.
assessment). Also, other new The report indicates that the Northeast Please note that submissions merely
information is contained in recent and Northwest populations of porbeagle stating support for or opposition to the
ICCAT proceedings, regulatory sharks are separate. This conclusion action under consideration without
documents, published literature and FR appears to be based solely on providing supporting information,
notices since the ICES/ICCAT 2009 conventional tagging information, although noted, will not be considered
stock assessment (Andrushchenko et consistent with the petitions, and does in making a determination. Section
al./Canada, 2014; Bendall et al., 2013; not appear to incorporate any 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs that a
Campana et al., 2012; Canada/ICCAT, information from genetic studies. In our determination must be made ‘‘solely on
2014; CPC/ICCAT, 2014; Gallagher et 2010 finding, we concluded, based on the basis of the best scientific and
al., 2014; Kitamura and Matsunaga, genetic information, that porbeagle from commercial data available.’’ On or
2010; Marua et al., 2012; NEAFC/ the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic before December 12, 2015, we will issue
ICCAT, 2013; NMFS/HMS, 2013; SCRS, are not discrete. While we believe a 12-month determination based on a
2014; Semba et al., 2013; 75 FR 250; 79 genetics are a more reliable indicator of review of the best scientific and
FR 75068; 50 CFR part 635). discreteness than tagging information, commercial data available, including all
Additionally, several new we recognize the uncertainty about the relevant information received from the
management actions were implemented existence of discrete populations. The public in response to this 90-day
or became effective prior to remand, but appropriate means for addressing this finding.
after the 2010 petitions were received. uncertainty is to consider the You may submit your information
These include the addition of porbeagle information in a review of the status of concerning this finding by one of the
sharks to Appendix II of the Convention the species. methods listed in the ADDRESSES
on International Trade in Endangered section. Please note that in our final
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, a 2013 Petition Finding determination we may not consider
prohibition on directed fishing for In light of the information described comments we receive after the date
porbeagle in Canada and increasing above, which indicates that the specified in the DATES section. If you
protections in the European Union (EU) petitioned actions may be warranted, we submit your information via http://
which will more closely regulate trade are accepting the petitions and initiating www.regulations.gov, your entire
of the species. a review of the status of the species. submission including personal
In 2014, the Committee on the Status identifying information will be posted
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

of Endangered Wildlife in Canada Information Solicited on the Web site. If your submission is
(COSEWIC) published a new assessment To ensure that the status review is made via hardcopy that includes
and status report on porbeagle sharks in complete and based on the best personal identifying information, you
Canada. The report reaffirms available scientific and commercial may request at the top of your document
COSEWIC’s designation of the species information, we are soliciting that we withhold this information from
as ‘‘endangered’’ due to COSEWIC information concerning porbeagle public review. However, we cannot
criterion A2b under the Species at Risk sharks. We request information from the guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Act. The report states the species meets public, concerned governmental We will post all hard copy submissions
this criterion ‘‘because the abundance of agencies, Native American tribes, the on http://www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Mar 26, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM 27MRP1

$16358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules Information and materials we receive, hours at NMFS’ Greater Atlantic Dated: March 23, 2015. as well as supporting documentation we Regional Fisheries Office. Samuel D. Rauch, III, used in preparing this finding, will be Authority Deputy Assistant Administrator for available for public inspection, by Regulatory Programs, National Marine appointment, during normal business The authority for this action is the Fisheries Service. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as [FR Doc. 2015–07073 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). BILLING CODE 3510–22–P asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Mar 26, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM 27MRP1$

Document Created: 2015-12-18 11:36:44
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 11:36:44

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		90-day petition finding; request for information.
Dates		Written comments, data and information related to this petition finding must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on May 12, 2015.
Contact		Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region, (978) 281-9328; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, HQ, (301) 427- 8469.
FR Citation		80 FR 16356
RIN Number		0648-XD74
CFR Citation		50 CFR 223 50 CFR 224

80 FR 16356 - Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions To List Porbeagle Sharks

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 59 (March 27, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration