81 FR 1376 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 7 (January 12, 2016)

Page Range		1376-1385
FR Document		2016-00384
We, NMFS, announce the 90-day finding on a petition to list the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) range-wide, or in the alternative, as one or more distinct population segments (DPSs) identified by the petitioners as endangered or threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the species worldwide. Accordingly, we will initiate a status review of oceanic whitetip shark range-wide at this time. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1376-1385]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00384]



[[Page 1376]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 151110999-5999-01]
RIN 0648-XE314


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under 
the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: 90-day petition finding, request for information, and 
initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the 90-day finding on a petition to list 
the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) range-wide, or in 
the alternative, as one or more distinct population segments (DPSs) 
identified by the petitioners as endangered or threatened under the 
U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted for the species worldwide. 
Accordingly, we will initiate a status review of oceanic whitetip shark 
range-wide at this time. To ensure that the status review is 
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information 
regarding this species.

DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received 
by March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data, by including 
``NOAA-NMFS-2015-0152'' by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2015-0152, click the ``Comment Now'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail or hand-delivery: Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments if they are sent by 
any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after 
the comment period ends. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and NMFS will post for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. 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. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources (301) 427-8491.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 21, 2015, we received a petition from Defenders of 
Wildlife requesting that we list the oceanic whitetip shark 
(Carcharhinus longimanus) as endangered or threatened under the ESA, 
or, in the alternative, to list one or more distinct population 
segments (DPSs), should we find they exist, as threatened or endangered 
under the ESA. Defenders of Wildlife also requested that critical 
habitat be designated for this species in U.S. waters concurrent with 
final ESA listing. The petition states that the oceanic whitetip shark 
merits listing as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA 
because of the following: (1) The species faces impacts from various 
chemical pollutants within its habitat; (2) the species faces threats 
from historical and continued fishing for commercial purposes; (3) 
diseases, such as highly pathogenic bacteria, may be impacting the 
species in conjunction with pollutants; (4) regulations are inadequate 
to protect the oceanic whitetip shark; (5) life history characteristics 
and limited ability to recover from fishing pressure make the species 
particularly vulnerable to overexploitation.

ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or 
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that 
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly 
publish the finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). 
When we find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a 
petition and in our files indicates the petitioned action may be 
warranted (a ``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly 
commence a review of the status of the species concerned, which 
includes conducting a comprehensive review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information. Within 12 months of receiving 
the petition, we must conclude the review with a finding as to whether, 
in fact, the petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the 
12-month stage is based on a significantly more thorough review of the 
available information, a ``may be warranted'' finding at the 90-day 
stage does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a ``species,'' 
which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate 
species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A 
joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy clarifies the 
agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment'' 
for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species 
under the ESA (``DPS Policy''; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A 
species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and 
(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, the 
determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be 
based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) 
factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or 
predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other 
natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 
CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of 
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the 
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe 
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When 
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, 
we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the 
administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any 
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative 
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on 
available information, past and

[[Page 1377]]

present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any 
threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the 
status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; 
and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in 
the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent 
publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps 
(50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
    At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based 
upon the information in the petition including its references, and the 
information readily available in our files. We do not conduct 
additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties 
outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will 
accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the 
information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted 
scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files 
that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, 
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information 
that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is 
contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at 
the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable 
person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. 
Conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's 
requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day 
finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone 
negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would 
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction 
risk of concern for the species at issue.
    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we 
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either 
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate 
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the 
information readily available in our files, indicates that the 
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under 
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the 
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this 
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' 
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to 
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic 
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at 
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial 
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical 
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential 
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the 
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic 
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in ESA section 
4(a)(1).
    Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to 
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these 
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species 
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad 
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification 
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute 
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for 
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed 
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response.
    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may 
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. 
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a 
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by 
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because 
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such 
classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the 
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction 
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

Species Description

Distribution

    The oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) is a large, 
highly migratory oceanic species of shark, and is one of the most 
widespread species of shark found throughout the world in epipelagic 
tropical and subtropical waters between 30 [deg]N. and 35 [deg]S. 
latitude. In the Western Atlantic, oceanic whitetips occur from Maine 
to Argentina, including the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. In the 
Central and Eastern Atlantic, the species occurs from Madeira, Portugal 
south to the Gulf of Guinea, and possibly in the Mediterranean Sea. In 
the Western Indian Ocean, the species can be found in waters of South 
Africa, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius and Seychelles, and the Red 
Sea, and India. Oceanic whitetips are also found throughout the Western 
and Central Pacific, including China (including Taiwan Island), the 
Philippines, New Caledonia, Australia (southern Australian coast), 
Hawaiian Islands south to Samoa Islands, Tahiti and Tuamotu Archipelago 
and west to Galapagos Islands. Finally, in the Eastern Pacific, the 
species can be found from southern California to Peru, including the 
Gulf of California and Clipperton Island (Compagno, 1984).

Physical Characteristics

    The oceanic whitetip shark has a stocky build with a large rounded 
first dorsal fin and very long and wide paddle-like pectoral fins 
(Compagno, 1984). The head has a short and bluntly rounded nose and 
small circular eyes with nictitating membranes. The upper jaw contains 
broad, triangular serrated teeth, while the teeth in the lower jaw are 
more pointed and are only serrated near the tip (Compagno, 1984). The 
first dorsal fin is very wide with a rounded tip, originating just in 
front of the rear tips of the pectoral fins. The second dorsal fin 
originates over or slightly in front of the base of the anal fin. The 
body is grayish bronze to brown in color, but varies depending upon 
geographic location. The underside is whitish with a yellow tinge on 
some individuals (Compagno, 1984). The species also exhibits a color 
pattern of mottled white tips on its front dorsal, caudal, and pectoral 
fins with black tips on its anal fin and on the ventral surfaces of its 
pelvic fins. They usually cruise slowly at or near the surface with 
their huge pectoral fins conspicuously outspread, but can suddenly dash 
for a short distance when disturbed (Compagno, 1984).

[[Page 1378]]

Habitat

    The oceanic whitetip shark is found in a diverse spectrum of 
locations: It is a surface-dwelling and predominantly oceanic-
epipelagic shark, but occasionally coastal, tropical and warm temperate 
shark, usually found far offshore in the open sea. It has a clear 
preference for open ocean waters and its abundance increases away from 
continental and insular shelves (Backus et al., 1956; Strasburg, 1958; 
Compagno, 1984). This species sometimes occurs in inshore waters as 
shallow as 37 m, particularly off oceanic islands or in continental 
areas where the shelf is very narrow, but is generally found in water 
with the bottom below 184 m, from the surface to at least 152 m deep. 
It is thought to primarily occupy the upper layer of the water column, 
tolerating temperatures from 18-28[deg] C but preferring > 20[deg] C. 
Although one was caught in water of 15[deg] C, the species tends to 
withdraw from waters that are cooling below this temperature (e.g., the 
Gulf of Mexico in winter (Compagno, 1984)).

Feeding Ecology

    Oceanic whitetip sharks are high trophic level predators in open 
ocean ecosystems feeding mainly on teleosts and cephalopods (Backus, 
1954; Bonfil et al., 2008), but studies have also reported that they 
prey on sea birds, marine mammals, other sharks and rays, molluscs and 
crustaceans, and even garbage (Compagno, 1984; Cort[eacute]s, 1999). 
Based on the species' diet, the oceanic whitetip has a high trophic 
level, with a score of of 4.2 out of a maximum 5.0 (Cort[eacute]s, 
1999)

Life History

    The oceanic whitetip has an estimated maximum age of 17 years, 
although only a maximum age of 13 years has been confirmed (Lessa et 
al., 1999). In general, this species is said to attain a maximum size 
of 395.0 cm (Compagno, 1984), with theoretical maximum sizes ranging 
from 325 to 342 cm total length (TL) (Lessa et al., 1999; Seki et al., 
1998, respectively); however, the most common sizes are below 300.0 cm 
(Compagno, 1984). Age of maturity is slightly different depending on 
location: In the southwestern Atlantic, age and size of maturity in 
oceanic whitetips was estimated to be 6-7 years and 180-190 cm TL, 
respectively, for both sexes (Lessa et al., 1999). In the North 
Pacific, females become mature at about 168-196 cm TL, and males at 
175-189 cm TL, which corresponds to an age of 4 and 5 years, 
respectively (Seki et al., 1998). In the Indian Ocean, both males and 
females mature at around 190-200 cm TL (IOTC, 2014). Similar to other 
carcharhinid species, the oceanic whitetip shark is viviparous with 
placental embryonic development. The reproductive cycle is thought to 
be biennial, giving birth on alternate years, after a 10-12 month 
gestation period. The number of pups in a litter ranges from 1 to 14, 
with an average of 6, and there is a potential positive correlation 
between female size and number of pups per litter (Bonfil et al., 2008; 
Compagno, 1984). Size at birth varies slightly between geographic 
locations, ranging from 55 to 75 cm TL in the North Pacific, around 65-
75 cm TL in the northwestern Atlantic, and 60-65 cm TL off South 
Africa, with reproductive seasons thought to occur from late spring to 
summer (Bonfil et al., 2008; Compagno, 1984).

Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files

    Below we evaluate the information provided in the petition and 
readily available in our files to determine if the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that an 
endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of 
the factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. If requested to 
list a global population or, alternatively, a DPS, we first determine 
if the petition presents substantial information that the petitioned 
action is warranted for the global population. If it does, then we make 
a positive finding on the petition and conduct a review of the species 
range-wide. If after this review we find that the species does not 
warrant listing range-wide, then we will consider whether the 
populations requested by the petition qualify as DPSs and warrant 
listing. If the petition does not present substantial information that 
the global population may warrant listing, but it has requested that we 
list any distinct populations of the species as threatened or 
endangered, then we consider whether the petition provides substantial 
information that the requested population(s) may qualify as DPSs under 
the discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy, and 
if listing any of those DPSs may be warranted. We summarize our 
analysis and conclusions regarding the information presented by the 
petitioners and in our files on the specific ESA section 4(a)(1) 
factors that we find may be affecting the species' risk of global 
extinction below.

Oceanic Whitetip Status and Trends

    The petition does not provide a global population abundance 
estimate for oceanic whitetip sharks, but states that the species was 
formerly one of the most common sharks in the ocean and has undergone 
serious declines throughout its global range. The petition asserts that 
a global decline of oceanic whitetip sharks has been caused mainly by 
commercial fishing (both direct harvest and bycatch) driven by demands 
of the shark fin trade. In the Northwest and Central Atlantic, the 
petition cites population declines of up to 70 percent since the early 
1990s, and even more significant historical declines of up to 99 
percent in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1950s. In the Southwest and 
equatorial Atlantic, the petition points to various but limited pieces 
of information indicating potential population declines and high 
fishing pressure in this region. In the Western and Central Pacific, 
the petition provides numerous lines of evidence, including a recent 
stock assessment report as well as other standardized catch per unit 
effort (CPUE) data, that oceanic whitetips have suffered significant 
population declines (> 90 percent in some areas) as well as declines in 
size and biomass in both the greater Western and Central Pacific as 
well as Hawaii. In the Eastern Pacific, the petition cites limited 
information based on nominal CPUE data that indicates an estimated 95 
percent decline in bycatch rates of oceanic whitetips in purse seine 
fisheries. Finally, in the Indian Ocean, the petition notes that while 
trend information is limited for this region, a limited number of 
studies as well as some anecdotal information indicate that oceanic 
whitetip populations may be declining.
    The last IUCN assessment of the oceanic whitetip shark was 
completed in 2006 and several estimates of global and subpopulation 
trends and status have been made and are described in the following 
text. In the Northwest Atlantic, declines in relative abundance cited 
by the petitioner were derived from standardized catch-rate indices 
estimated from self-reported fisheries logbook data by pelagic 
commercial longline fishers in Baum et al. (2003) and Cort[eacute]s et 
al. (2007). The logbook data indicated declines of 70 percent from 1992 
to 2000 (Baum et al., 2003) and 57 percent from 1992 to 2005 
(Cort[eacute]s et al., 2007). However, standardized catch-rate analysis 
of data collected by on-board scientific observers that sample the same 
pelagic longline fishery resulted in a less pronounced decline than the 
logbook series (9 percent vs. 57 percent) while the nominal observer 
series showed a 36

[[Page 1379]]

percent decline (Cort[eacute]s et al., 2007). It should be noted that 
the sample size for oceanic whitetips in the observer analysis was 
substantially lower than for the other species, and changes in hook 
depth, which are particularly important in catching oceanic whitetips, 
were not considered. Thus, these trends should be regarded with 
caution. Overall, despite the 57 percent decline from the standardized 
logbook data from 1992-2005, Cortes et al. (2007) reports that the 
latter portion of the time series shows a stable and possibly 
increasing trend for oceanic whitetips from 2000-2005. In contrast to 
the 9 percent decline found in the analysis of observer data in Cortes 
et al. (2007), a more recent analysis using observer data between 1996 
and 2005 provides additional evidence that the abundance of oceanic 
whitetips has declined over this time period. The estimated rate of 
change in oceanic whitetips equated to a 50 percent decline (95 percent 
CI: 17-70 percent) between1992 and 2005 (Baum and Blanchard, 2010); 
however, the authors noted that although model estimates suggest 
significant declines in oceanic whitetip sharks between 1992 and 2005, 
the high degree of interannual variability in the individual year 
estimates suggests that the catch rates have not been fully 
standardized (i.e., covariates that significantly influence catch rates 
of these species were not included in the models) and limits what can 
reasonably be inferred about the relative abundance of the species.
    In the Gulf of Mexico, the petition cited Baum and Myers (2004), 
which compared longline CPUE from research surveys from 1954-1957 to 
observed commercial longline sets from 1995-1999, and determined that 
the oceanic whitetip had declined by more than 150-fold, or 99.3 
percent (95 percent CI: 98.3-99.8 percent) in the Gulf during that 
time. However, the methods and results of Baum et al. (2003) and Baum 
and Myers (2004) were critiqued by Burgess et al. (2005), who agreed 
that abundance of large pelagic sharks had declined but presented 
arguments that the population declines were probably less severe than 
indicated by these. Of particular relevance to oceanic whitetip, 
Burgess et al. (2005) noted that the change from steel to monofilament 
leaders between the 1950s and 1990s could have reduced the catchability 
of all large sharks, and the increase in the average depth of sets 
during the same period could have reduced the catchability of the 
surface-dwelling oceanic whitetip (FAO 2012). After a re-analysis of 
the same data and correcting for the aforementioned factors, declines 
of oceanic whitetip in the Gulf of Mexico were estimated to be 88 
percent rather than 99 percent (Driggers et al., 2011).
    Thus, abundance trend estimates derived from standardized catch 
rate indices of the U.S. pelagic longline fishery suggest that oceanic 
whitetips have likely undergone a decline in abundance in this region. 
However, the conflicting evidence regarding the magnitude of decline 
between the fisheries logbook data and observer data cannot be fully 
resolved at this time. While the logbook dataset is the largest 
available for the western North Atlantic Ocean, the observer dataset is 
generally more reliable in terms of consistent identification and 
reporting, particularly of bycatch species. Data are not available in 
the petition or in our own files to assess the trend in population 
abundance in this region since 2006. However, because the logbook data 
from this region show consistent evidence of a significant and 
continued decline in oceanic whitetip sharks, we must consider this 
information in our 90-day determination.
    The petition cites several lines of evidence indicating that 
oceanic whitetips in the Western and Central Pacific have suffered 
significant population declines throughout the region, including 
declining trends in standardized CPUE data as well as biomass and size 
indices. The most reliable evidence likely comes from the first and 
only stock assessment of oceanic whitetip, in which standardized CPUE 
series were estimated in the Western and Central Pacific based on 
observer data held by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) 
and collected over the years from 1995-2009. Based on the data in the 
oceanic whitetip stock assessment, the median estimate of oceanic 
whitetip biomass in the Western Central Pacific in 2010 was 7,295 tons, 
which would be equivalent to a population of roughly 200,000 
individuals. This stock assessment report (Rice and Harley, 2012) 
concluded that the catch, CPUE, and size composition data for oceanic 
whitetip all show consistent declines from 1995-2009. In addition to 
the stock assessment report, another study analyzing catch rates from 
observer data confirmed significant population declines for the oceanic 
whitetip. Standardized CPUE of longline fleets in the Western and 
Central Pacific declined significantly for oceanic whitetip sharks in 
tropical waters by 17 percent per year (CI: 14 percent to 20 percent) 
from 1996 to 2009, which equates to a total decline in annual values of 
90 percent, with low uncertainty in the estimates (Clarke et al., 
2012). This study also found a decrease in size of female oceanic 
whitetips in their core tropical habitat, and that all individuals 
sampled from purse-seine fisheries since 2000 have been immature. More 
recently, Rice et al. (2015) confirmed that population declines of 
oceanic whitetips have continued since the stock assessment report was 
completed in 2009. Specifically, the standardized oceanic whitetip 
shark trend decreases steadily over 1995-2014, with a large decrease 
from 2013-2014 in the standardized CPUE, indicating continuing 
population declines in this region. In fact, the study concluded that 
if the population of oceanic whitetip shark doubled since the stock 
assessment, it would still be overfished (Rice et al., 2015).
    Separate analyses have also been conducted for Hawaiian pelagic 
longline fisheries that found similar declines. Brodziak and Walsh 
(2013) showed a highly significant decreasing trend in standardized 
CPUE of oceanic whitetip from 1995 to 2010, resulting in a decline in 
relative abundance on the order of 90 percent. These results were 
similar to earlier results from Clarke and Walsh (2011) that also found 
oceanic whitetip CPUE decreased by greater than 90 percent since 1995 
in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery. These results suggest 
that declines of oceanic whitetip populations are not just regional, 
but rather a Pacific-wide phenomenon.
    The petition acknowledged that in the Eastern Pacific, assessments 
of oceanic whitetip declines are less prevalent, but provided some 
information that oceanic whitetips have suffered significant population 
declines as a result of purse-seine fisheries in this region. According 
to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), unstandardized 
nominal catch-rate data for the oceanic whitetip shark from purse-seine 
sets on floating objects, unassociated sets and dolphin sets all show 
decreasing trends since 1994 (IATTC, 2007). On floating object sets in 
particular, nominal incidental catch of oceanic whitetip declined by 
approximately 95 percent (FAO, 2012).
    Likewise, in other areas of the world, estimates of oceanic 
whitetip abundance are limited. In the Indian Ocean, the status and 
abundance of shark species is poorly known despite a long history of 
research and more than 60 years of commercial exploitation by large-
scale tuna fisheries (Romanov et al., 2010). Available standardized 
CPUE indices from Japanese and Spanish longline fisheries are limited 
and indicate conflicting trends, although both datasets indicate 
overall population

[[Page 1380]]

declines ranging from 25-40 percent. Presently, there is no 
quantitative stock assessment and only limited basic fishery indicators 
are currently available for oceanic whitetip sharks in the Indian 
Ocean; therefore, the stock status is uncertain. However, in addition 
to the limited data available indicating some level of population 
decline, anecdotal information suggests that oceanic whitetip shark 
abundance has declined over recent decades and the species has become 
rare throughout much of the Indian Ocean basin over the last 20 years 
(IOTC, 2014). With such high pelagic fishing effort in this region, and 
no indication that fishing pressure will cease in the foreseeable 
future, the species may continue to experience declines in this portion 
of its range.
    In conclusion, across the species' global range we find evidence 
suggesting that population abundance of the oceanic whitetip shark is 
declining or, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, potentially stabilized. 
While data are still limited with respect to population size and 
trends, we find the petition and our files sufficient in presenting 
substantial information on oceanic whitetip shark abundance, trends, or 
status to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted.

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    The petition indicated that oceanic whitetip sharks merit listing 
due to all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: Present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade factors affecting 
its continued existence. We discuss each of these below based on 
information in the petition, and the information readily available in 
our files.

Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range

    The petition contends that oceanic whitetip sharks are at risk of 
extinction throughout their range due to pollutants, especially those 
that are able to bioaccumulate and biomagnify to high concentrations as 
a result of the species' high trophic position, long life, and large 
size. Of particular concern to the petitioners are high polychlorinated 
biphenyl (PCB) and mercury concentrations in oceanic whitetip shark 
tissues, which can cause a variety of negative physiological impacts. A 
study cited by the petition that analyzed the pollutant composition of 
an amalgamated liver oil sample taken from three shark species 
(including oceanic whitetip, silky (Carcharhinus falciformis), and 
nurse (Ginglymostoma cirratum) sharks) looked at dioxins and dioxin-
like PCBs in the sample (Cruz-Nu[ntilde]ez et al., 2009). The petition 
states that the study found very high levels of both of these 
pollutants in the tested liver oil, and, in comparison to levels found 
in smooth hammerhead sharks (Storelli et al., 2003), these levels would 
likely exceed threshold levels of PCBs for some cell- and molecular-
level effects seen in aquatic vertebrates. However, the former study 
(Cruz-Nu[ntilde]ez et al., 2009) was based on an amalgamated liver oil 
sample taken from an unknown composition of three different shark 
species, the results of which cannot be solely attributed to the 
oceanic whitetip. Additionally, of the 33 species for which published 
data are available, only two have been shown to exhibit PCB 
concentrations above the threshold for organism-level effects in fish 
and aquatic mammals (e.g., growth and reproduction, which are impaired 
at PCB concentrations >50 [mu]g/g;): The Greenland shark (Somniosus 
microcephalus) and bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) (Gelsleichter and 
Walker, 2010). The petition also states that high concentrations of 
mercury found in oceanic whitetip sharks can interact with the presence 
of any PCBs and exacerbate mercury neurotoxicity; however, the petition 
did not provide any evidence that such impacts are presently affecting 
oceanic whitetip populations.
    Generally, we look for information in the petition and in our files 
to indicate that not only is the particular species exposed to a 
factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion. 
Despite providing evidence that oceanic whitetip sharks accumulate 
pollutants in their tissues, the petitioners fail to provide evidence 
that these concentrations of PCBs and mercury are causing detrimental 
physiological effects to the species or may be contributing 
significantly to population declines in oceanic whitetip sharks to the 
point where the species may be at risk of extinction. In addition, we 
did not find any information in our files to suggest that pollutants 
are negatively impacting oceanic whitetip shark populations, such that 
it poses an extinction risk to the species. As such, we conclude that 
the information presented in the petition, and in our own files, on 
threats to the habitat of the oceanic whitetip shark does not provide 
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 
the species.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petition states that the threat of overutilization, as a result 
of historical and continued catch of the species in both targeted 
fisheries and, more importantly, incidentally as bycatch, is the 
primary driver of population declines observed for oceanic whitetip 
sharks. More specifically, the petition states that because oceanic 
whitetip fins are highly valued in the international fin market, with 
values of $45-85 per kilogram and categorized as ``first choice'' in 
Hong Kong, overutilization driven by the shark fin trade has resulted 
in population declines of oceanic whitetip. In fact, demand from the 
international fin market is considered to be the primary force driving 
retention of bycatch of this species, as the meat is considered to be 
of low commercial value (Mundy-Taylor and Crooke, 2013). Evidence 
suggests that the oceanic whitetip shark may account for approximately 
2.8 percent [CI: 1.6-2.1 percent] of the fins auctioned in Hong Kong, 
one of the world's largest fin-trading centers (Clarke, 2006). This 
translates to approximately 200,000 to 1.3 million oceanic whitetips 
that may enter the global fin trade each year (Clarke, 2006). Given the 
ease of morphological identification of oceanic whitetip fins by 
traders, the best estimate of oceanic whitetip sharks' contribution to 
the trade is likely more accurate than that for other species because 
these fins are less likely to be inadvertently sorted into other 
categories. We found additional evidence in our files that oceanic 
whitetips are highly utilized in the shark fin trade. In a genetic 
barcoding study of shark fins from markets in Taiwan, oceanic whitetips 
were one of 20 species identified and comprised 0.38 percent of 
collected fin samples. Additionally, oceanic whitetips comprised 1.72 
percent of fins genetically tested from markets throughout Indonesia 
(the largest shark catching country in the world). In another genetic 
barcoding study of fins from United Arab Emirates, the fourth largest 
exporter in the world of raw dried shark fins to Hong Kong, the authors 
found that the oceanic whitetip represented 0.45 percent of the trade 
from Dubai (Jabado et al., 2015). Overall, the fact that oceanic 
whitetips are highly valued and preferentially retained for their fins, 
are possibly targeted in some areas, and comprise a portion of the Hong 
Kong fin-trading auction suggests that overutilization via the fin 
trade may be a threat

[[Page 1381]]

contributing to the extinction risk of the species.
    In addition to the many oceanic whitetips that are retained as 
bycatch in fisheries throughout its range, the petition contends that 
many oceanic whitetips incidentally caught as bycatch will die even 
when they are not retained as a result of post-capture mortality (i.e., 
mortality that occurs once the species is hooked and hauled in) and 
post-release mortality (i.e., mortality that occurs after the species 
is released). Based on the available information in the petition and in 
our files, we found that oceanic whitetips have relatively high 
survivorship in comparison to other pelagic shark species when caught 
on longline gear. For example, in Portuguese longline fisheries 
targeting swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean, 66 percent of oceanic 
whitetips were alive at haul-back in comparison to smooth hammerhead or 
silky sharks, of which only 29 percent and 44 percent, respectively, 
were alive at haul-back (Coelho et al., 2012). In addition, a large 
proportion of the oceanic whitetip sharks taken as bycatch in the U.S. 
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery are alive when brought to the vessel 
(>75 percent; (Beerkircher et al., 2002) and between 65-88 percent are 
still alive at haul-back in the Fijian longline fishery (Gilman et al., 
2008). However, we do agree with the petition that these numbers do not 
account for post-release mortality, and although oceanic whitetips have 
higher survivorship than some other pelagic shark species, these 
sources of mortality must also be taken into consideration.
    In the Northwest and Central Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the 
oceanic whitetip was once described as the most common pelagic shark 
throughout the warm-temperate and tropical waters of the Atlantic and 
beyond the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Historically, 
oceanic whitetips were caught as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries 
targeting tuna and swordfish in this region, with an estimated 8,526 
individuals recorded as captured in these fisheries logbooks from 1992 
to 2000 (Baum et al., 2003). The petition contends that due to 
continued exploitation, beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, combined with 
the species' vulnerability to pelagic longline fisheries, oceanic 
whitetips have undergone significant population declines in this 
region. As previously described, estimates of decline vary, and range 
from up to 70 percent in the Northwest Atlantic and up to 88 percent in 
the Gulf of Mexico. In order to implement the International Commission 
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) recommendation 10-07 for 
the conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks, the species has been 
prohibited in U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries since 2011. 
However, it should be noted that oceanic whitetip sharks are still 
caught as bycatch in this region despite its prohibited status (NMFS, 
2012; 2014), although bycatch numbers have decreased. Since the 
prohibition was implemented in 2011, estimated commercial landings of 
oceanic whitetip declined from 1.1 mt in 2011 to only 0.03 mt in 2013 
(NMFS 2012; 2014 SAFE Reports). In 2013, NMFS reported a total of 33 
oceanic whitetip prohibited interactions, with 88 percent released 
alive. In addition to population declines, the petition cites 
information suggesting that oceanic whitetip sharks have experienced 
decreasing sizes in this region, indicating unsustainable catch. In 
comparison to surveys conducted in the 1950s, mean weight of oceanic 
whitetip sharks in the 1990s showed a decline of 35 percent in the Gulf 
of Mexico (Baum and Myers, 2004). Further, off the Southeastern United 
States, most of the observed catches of oceanic whitetip from 1992-2000 
were below the species' size of maturity. In addition to the recorded 
commercial utilization of the species, the petition also notes that 
illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is problematic, 
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, where the petition states that 
Mexican fishermen are illegally catching an estimated 3 to 56 percent 
of the total U.S. commercial shark quota, and between 6 and 108 percent 
of the Gulf of Mexico regional commercial quota, which further 
contributes to overutilization of the species. However, the quotas the 
petition refers to are actually for large coastal sharks rather than 
pelagic sharks, and most of the species caught are not oceanic 
whitetips. Overall, evidence suggests that oceanic whitetip sharks have 
suffered significant population declines in the Northwest Atlantic and 
Gulf of Mexico, likely as a result of fishing pressure. Although the 
magnitude of population declines remains uncertain, we find substantial 
evidence to suggest that overutilization may be a threat to the species 
in this region that warrants further exploration to determine whether 
it contributes significantly to the species' extinction risk.
    In the Southwest and equatorial Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip is 
commonly caught in both longline and purse-seine fisheries. The 
petition notes that data concerning oceanic whitetip population trends 
are less abundant in this region, but claims there is significant 
evidence of decline where the species was formerly abundant. In this 
region, oceanic whitetips were historically reported as the second-most 
abundant shark, outnumbered only by blue shark, in research surveys 
between 1992 and 1997 (FAO 2012). However, more recent observer data 
from the Uruguayan longline fleet operating in this region reported low 
CPUE values for oceanic whitetip from 2003 to 2006, with the highest 
CPUE recorded not exceeding 0.491 individuals/1,000 hooks. In total, 
only 63 oceanic whitetips were caught on 2,279,169 hooks and most were 
juveniles (Domingo et al., 2007). Though these data do not indicate 
whether a decline in the oceanic whitetip population occurred, they 
clearly show that this species is currently not abundant in this area. 
Additionally, total landings of oceanic whitetip in the Brazilian tuna 
longline fishery have shown a continuous decline, decreasing from about 
640t in 2000 to 80t in 2005. However, like the previous study, CPUE 
data are not available for the species; thus, it is impossible to 
evaluate if such a decline resulted from a lower abundance or from 
changes in catchability, related, for instance, to targeting strategies 
(Hazin et al., 2007). However, in another recent study from the South 
Atlantic, almost 80 percent of the oceanic whitetip sharks caught in 
the Brazilian longline tuna fleet between 2004 and 2009 were juveniles 
(Tolotti et al., 2010), which, in combination with significantly low 
catches and low patchy abundance in areas where the species was 
formerly abundant, may be indicative of significant fishing pressure 
leading to population declines. Further, increases in effort of the 
Spanish longline fleet, as well as the expansion of fishing activities 
by southern coastal countries, such as Brazil and Uruguay, occurred in 
the early to mid-1990s (FAO, 2012), which may have contributed to 
declines in oceanic whitetip abundance. Without any robust standardized 
fisheries data to account for various factors that may affect the catch 
rate of oceanic whitetip, the species' abundance and trends in this 
region are highly uncertain. However, we agree with the petition that 
the available information indicates that overutilization may be a 
threat to the species in this region, as evidenced by low catch rates 
and landings in various fisheries that comport with increases in 
fishing effort, as well as the prevalence of immature sharks comprising 
the majority of catches of major pelagic longline fishing fleets in the 
region.

[[Page 1382]]

    As in the Atlantic Ocean, the oceanic whitetip was also formerly 
one of the most abundant sharks throughout the Pacific Ocean. Evidence 
shows that oceanic whitetips commonly interact with both longline and 
purse-seine fisheries throughout the Pacific, with at least 20 member 
nations of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 
recording the species in their fisheries. In the Western and Central 
Pacific, where sharks represent 25 percent of the longline fishery 
catch, observer data show that the oceanic whitetip shark is the 5th 
most common species of shark caught as bycatch out of a total 49 
species reported by observers, and represents approximately 3 percent 
of the total shark catch. Additionally, the oceanic whitetip is the 2nd 
most common species of shark caught as bycatch in purse-seine fisheries 
in this region, representing nearly 11 percent of the total shark catch 
(Molony, 2007). In a recent stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks 
in the Western and Central Pacific, the greatest impact on the species 
is attributed to bycatch from the longline fishery, with lesser impacts 
from target longline activities and purse-seining (Rice and Harley, 
2012). From 1995 to 2009, rates of fishing mortality consistently 
increased, driven mainly by the increased effort in the longline fleet 
over the same time period, and remain substantially above maximum 
sustainable yield (MSY) (i.e., the point at which there would be an 
equilibrium) for the species. As a result of this increasing fishing 
pressure, estimated spawning biomass declined by 86 percent over the 
time period, which is far below spawning biomass at MSY, indicating 
that the stock is overfished. Further, estimates of the stock depletion 
are that the total biomass has been reduced to only 6.6 percent of the 
theoretical equilibrium virgin biomass. In fact, the stock assessment 
concluded that fishing mortality on oceanic whitetip sharks in the 
Western and Central Pacific has increased to levels 6.5 times what is 
sustainable, thus concluding that overfishing is still occurring. Given 
that fishing pressure began well before the start of this time series, 
the authors of the stock assessment noted that it was not assumed that 
the oceanic whitetip population was at an unfished state of equilibrium 
at the start of the model (i.e., 1995). Thus, these declines do not 
reflect total historical population declines for the species in this 
region prior to the study. Further, this study does not include 
removals of oceanic whitetips from Indonesia and the Philippines, which 
are two major shark catching nations in this region.
    Although standardized CPUE data for the purse-seine fishery are not 
available, the oceanic whitetip is one of only two species frequently 
caught in this fishery and has exhibited declines that resemble those 
in the longline fishery (Clarke et al., 2012). As a result of the 
intensive fishing pressure in the Western and Central Pacific, size 
trends for oceanic whitetip are also declining, which may also be 
indicative of overutilization of the species, particularly due to the 
potential correlation between maternal length and litter size. Clarke 
et al. (2012) report the length of female oceanic whitetip sharks from 
the longline fishery declined in their core tropical habitat. 
Similarly, while Rice et al. (2015) more recently report that trends in 
oceanic whitetip median length are stable, the majority of sharks 
observed are immature. Similarly, since 2000, 100 percent of oceanic 
whitetips sampled in the purse-seine fisheries have been immature 
(Clarke et al., 2012). Thus, the significant declining trends observed 
in all available abundance indices (e.g., standardized CPUE, biomass 
and average size) of oceanic whitetips as a result of fishing mortality 
in both longline and purse-seine fisheries indicate that 
overutilization of the species may be occurring in the Western and 
Central Pacific.
    In the Central Pacific, oceanic whitetips are commonly caught as 
bycatch in Hawaii-based fisheries, and comprise 3 percent of the shark 
catch (Brodziak and Walsh, 2013). Based on observer data from the 
Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program (PIROP), oceanic whitetip 
shark mean annual nominal CPUE decreased significantly from 0.428/1000 
hooks in 1995 to 0.036/1000 hooks in 2010. This reflected a significant 
decrease in nominal CPUE on longline sets with positive catch from 
1.690/1000 hooks to 0.773/1000 hooks, and a significant increase in 
longline sets with zero catches from 74.7 percent in 1995 to 95.3 
percent in 2010. When standardized to account for factors such as sea 
surface temperature, fishery sector, and latitude, oceanic whitetip 
CPUE declined by more than 90 percent in the Hawaii-based longline 
fishery since 1995. Brodziak and Walsh (2013) found similar results by 
using several models in order to make an accurate assessment of the 
species' CPUE from 1995 to 2010 in the Hawaii-based shallow-set and 
deep-set longline fisheries. They also found a highly significant 
decreasing trend in standardized CPUE from 1995 to 2010, resulting in a 
decline in relative abundance on the order of 90 percent due to 
increased sets with zero catches as well as decreased CPUE on sets with 
positive catch. The authors of this study concluded that relative 
abundance of oceanic whitetip declined within a few years of the 
expansion of the longline fishery.
    In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, oceanic whitetip sharks are most 
often taken as bycatch by ocean purse-seine fisheries. The oceanic 
whitetip shark was historically described as the second most common 
shark caught by the purse-seine fishery in the EPO (Compagno, 1984), 
and information collected by observers between 1993 and 2004 indicates 
this is still the case. In a recent effort to evaluate species 
composition of bycatch in Eastern Pacific purse-seine fisheries, 
species identification data for the Shark Characteristics Sampling 
Program showed that between March 2000 and March 2001, the oceanic 
whitetip comprised 20.8 percent of the total shark bycatch, second only 
to silky sharks (Rom[aacute]n-Verdesoto and Orozco-Z[ouml]ller, 2005). 
Since the mid-1980s, the tuna purse-seine fishery in the Pacific has 
been rapidly expanding (Williams and Terawasi, 2011), and despite the 
increase in fishery effort (or perhaps as a consequence of this 
increased fishing pressure), incidental catch of oceanic whitetips 
declined by more than 95 percent in the Eastern Pacific between 1994 
and 2006. However, this decline is based on an unstandardized index 
using observer data from 100 percent of sets during the relatively 
short period that fish aggregating devices have been used (FAO, 2012). 
Overall, we found that apart from blue and silky sharks, there are no 
stock assessments available for shark species in the Eastern Pacific, 
and hence the impacts of bycatch on the population are unknown (IATTC, 
2014). Nonetheless, a potential decline of this magnitude over a short 
period of time indicates that overutilization of the oceanic whitetip 
may be occurring in Eastern Pacific purse-seine fisheries, and warrants 
further investigation to determine whether it may be contributing 
significantly to the species' extinction risk.
    In the Indian Ocean, oceanic whitetip sharks are targeted by some 
semi-industrial and artisanal fisheries and are bycatch of industrial 
fisheries, including gillnet fisheries, pelagic longlines targeting 
tuna and swordfish and purse-seine fisheries. Countries that fish for 
various pelagic species of sharks include: Egypt, India, Iran, Oman, 
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, where the 
probable or actual status of shark populations is

[[Page 1383]]

unknown, and Maldives, Kenya, Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, and 
United Republic of Tanzania, where the actual status of shark 
populations is presumed to be fully to over-exploited (DeYoung, 2006). 
While fisheries are directed at other species, oceanic whitetip sharks 
are commonly caught as bycatch and catch rates are considered high 
(IOTC, 2014); however, the available information from Indian areas-
fleets reports relatively low prevalence of this species among target 
and/or other bycatch species caught by longliners targeting swordfish 
or tuna (Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012). Available fisheries data from 
Japanese and Spanish longline fishing fleets show conflicting catch 
trends. Standardized CPUE of the Japanese longline fleet in the Indian 
Ocean show a gradual decline of almost 40 percent from 2003 to 2009 
(Semba and Yokawa, 2011). Standardized CPUE of the Spanish longline 
fishery from 1998 to 2011 showed large historical fluctuations and a 
general decreasing trend in 1998-2007, followed by an increase 
thereafter. Overall, the magnitude of decline in this study was 
estimated to be about 25-30 percent (Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012). 
Nominal catches for oceanic whitetips also declined over this time 
period, peaking in 1999 with 3,050 mt and steadily declining to 245 mt 
in 2009. However, catch estimates for oceanic whitetip shark are 
uncertain, as only five contracting parties (CPCs) have reported 
detailed data on shark landings (i.e., Australia, EU (Spain, Portugal 
and United Kingdom), I.R. Iran, South Africa, and Sri Lanka) (IOTC, 
2014). In fact, catches of oceanic whitetips in the Indian Ocean are 
thought to be nearly 20 times higher than the estimates reported in the 
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) database (Murua et al., 2013). 
Additionally, oceanic whitetips were found to have relatively high 
vulnerability to pelagic longline fisheries in the Indian Ocean. In 
2012, an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was developed by the IOTC 
Scientific Committee to quantify which shark species are most at risk 
from the high levels of pelagic longline fishing pressure. In this ERA, 
the IOTC Scientific Committee noted that oceanic whitetip received a 
high vulnerability ranking (No. 5 out of 17) for longline gear because 
it was estimated as one of the least productive shark species, and was 
also characterized by a high susceptibility to longline gear (Murua et 
al., 2012). Oceanic whitetip shark was also estimated as being the most 
vulnerable shark species to purse-seine gear (Murua et al., 2013). 
Overall, available standardized CPUE indices from Japanese and Spanish 
longline fleets indicate conflicting trends, with no quantitative stock 
assessment and only limited basic fishery indicators currently 
available for the species. However, there are no CPUE data available 
from gillnet fisheries, which is responsible for the majority of 
catches of oceanic whitetips in the Indian Ocean (Murua et al., 2013). 
Therefore, the IOTC noted in 2014 that the stock status of oceanic 
whitetip is uncertain. However, the IOTC also reported in 2014 that 
``maintaining or increasing effort in this region will probably result 
in declines in biomass, productivity and CPUE'' for oceanic whitetip 
sharks (IOTC, 2014). Thus, while catch data are incomplete and cannot 
be used to estimate abundance levels or determine the magnitude of 
catches or trends for oceanic whitetips at this time, pelagic fishing 
effort in this region is high, with no indication that fishing pressure 
will cease in the foreseeable future. Given the foregoing information, 
we conclude that overutilization may be a threat to the species in the 
Indian Ocean and warrants further exploration to determine if it is 
contributing significantly to the extinction risk of the species.
    Overall, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the actual 
catch levels and trends of oceanic whitetip shark occurring throughout 
its range; however, it is likely that these rates are significantly 
under-reported due to a lack of comprehensive observer coverage in 
areas of its range in which the highest fishing pressure occurs, as 
well as a tendency for fishers to not record discards in fishery 
logbooks. Nevertheless, given the prevalence of oceanic whitetip as 
incidental catch throughout its range and its high value in the shark 
fin trade, combined with the species' low to moderate productivity (see 
Factor E--Other or Natural Manmade Factors), bycatch-related fishing 
mortality may be a threat placing the species at an increased risk of 
extinction. Overall, trends in the Northwest and Central Atlantic Ocean 
and Gulf of Mexico suggest that the species experienced historical 
declines from overexploitation, but may be stabilized in recent years, 
although there is considerable uncertainty regarding these trends. 
Across the Pacific, numerous lines of evidence suggest that oceanic 
whitetip sharks are experiencing significant and continued population 
declines as a result of fishing pressure. Elsewhere across the species' 
range, information in the petition and in our files suggests that the 
species may continue to experience declines as a result of 
overutilization from both direct and indirect fishing pressure. In 
summary, the petition, references cited, and information in our files 
comprise substantial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted because of overutilization for commercial purposes.

Disease and Predation

    The petition contends that the oceanic whitetip shark is at risk of 
extinction throughout its range because some oceanic whitetip sharks 
are infected with a highly pathogenic bacterium, Vibrio harveyi (Zhang, 
et al., 2009), which is known to cause deep dermal lesions, gastro-
enteritis, eye lesions, infectious necrotizing enteritis, vasculitis, 
and skin ulcers in vertebrate marine species (Austin and Zhang, 2006). 
The petition asserts that since this bacterium is considered to be more 
serious in immunocompromised hosts (Austin and Zhang, 2006), it may act 
synergistically with the potential high pollutant loads that oceanic 
whitetip sharks experience, creating an increased threat to the 
species. As noted previously, we generally look for information in the 
petition and in our files to indicate that not only is the particular 
species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in 
a negative fashion. However, the petition did not provide, nor could we 
find in our files, any supporting evidence that this bacterium is 
contributing to population declines in oceanic whitetip sharks to the 
point where the species may be at risk of extinction.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petition asserts that the existing international, regional, and 
national regulations do not adequately protect the oceanic whitetip 
shark and have been insufficient in preventing population declines. 
Additionally, the petition asserts that most existing regulations are 
inadequate because they limit retention of the oceanic whitetip shark 
and argues that the focus should be on limiting the catch of oceanic 
whitetip sharks in order to decrease fishery-related mortality, 
particularly given what the petition contends are the species' high 
post-catch mortality rates. Among the regulations that the petition 
cites as inadequate are shark finning bans and shark finning 
regulations. Shark finning bans are currently one of the most widely 
used forms of shark utilization regulations, and the petition notes 
that 21 countries, the European Union, and 9 Regional Fisheries

[[Page 1384]]

Management Organizations (RFMOs) have implemented shark finning bans 
(CITES, 2013). However, the petition contends that these shark finning 
bans are often ineffective as enforcement is difficult or lacking, 
implementation in RFMOs and international agreements is not always 
binding, and catches often go unreported (CITES, 2013). The petition 
also states that shark finning regulations tend to have loopholes that 
can be exploited to allow continued finning. Many shark finning 
regulations require that both the carcass and the fins be landed, but 
not necessarily naturally attached. Instead, the regulations impose a 
fin to carcass ratio weight, which is usually 5 percent (Dulvy et al., 
2008). This allows fishermen to preferentially retain the carcasses of 
valuable species and valuable fins from other species in order to 
maximize profits (Abercrombie et al., 2005). In 2010, the United States 
passed the Shark Conservation Act, which except for a limited exception 
regarding smooth dogfish, requires all sharks to be landed with their 
fins attached, abolishing the fin to carcass ratio (although this 
requirement was already implemented in 2008). Additionally, several 
U.S. states have prohibited the sale or trade of shark fins/products as 
well, including Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois, 
Maryland, Delaware, New York and Massachusetts, subsequently decreasing 
the United States' contribution to the fin trade. For example, after 
the state of Hawaii prohibited finning in its waters in 2000 and 
required shark fins to be landed with their corresponding carcasses in 
the state, shark fin imports from the United States into Hong Kong 
declined significantly (54 percent decrease, from 374 to 171 tonnes) as 
Hawaii could no longer be used as a fin trading center for the 
international fisheries operating and finning in the Central Pacific 
(Miller et al., 2014). However, in other parts of the species' range, 
the inadequacy of existing finning bans may be contributing to further 
declines in the species by allowing the wasteful practice of shark 
finning at sea to continue.
    In the U.S. Atlantic, oceanic whitetip sharks are managed as part 
of the Pelagic shark complex under the U.S. Highly Migratory Species 
Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP). The petition states that while the 
United States has a patchwork of measures that protect the oceanic 
whitetip to varying degrees, none of these measures (i.e., catch 
quotas, species-specific retention bans, and shark-finning bans) are 
adequate to protect the species. More specifically, the petition 
asserts that the catch quota for the pelagic complex under the U.S. HMS 
FMP of 488 mt, in which catches of oceanic whitetip is combined with 
other species, is inadequate because it is not species-specific, and, 
as a result, all or none of the 488 tons of sharks from this quota 
could be oceanic whitetips. The petition also states that the final 
rule to implement the 2010 International Commission on the Conservation 
of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendations, which prohibits the 
retention, transshipping, landing, storing, or selling of oceanic 
whitetip sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT, 
is inadequate because these regulations are limited in scope, such that 
some commercial and recreational fisheries are still allowed to catch 
oceanic whitetip sharks. The petition also asserts that these 
regulations are inadequate because they only apply in the Atlantic and 
Gulf of Mexico in Federal waters. We disagree with these assertions by 
the petition. We find that U.S. national fishing regulations include 
numerous regulatory mechanisms for both sharks in general, and oceanic 
whitetip specifically, that may help protect the species. Since 2002, 
well before the prohibition of oceanic whitetips in Atlantic HMS 
pelagic longline fisheries, total commercial landings of oceanic 
whitetip have rarely exceeded 1 mt, which represents a minimal portion 
of the 488 mt quota for the Pelagic complex group. Given that most 
U.S.-flagged vessels fish at the northernmost part of the range of the 
oceanic whitetip, the low abundance of this species likely reflects the 
distribution of the fishery (Beerkircher et al., 2002). Additionally, 
since the implementation of ICCAT recommendations in 2011, estimated 
commercial landings of oceanic whitetip declined from 1.1 mt to only 
0.03 mt (NMFS, 2012 and 2014 SAFE Reports). Further, oceanic whitetip 
sharks are not targeted in U.S. recreational fisheries. In fact, 
estimates of recreationally harvested oceanic whitetips have been zero 
since 2002. On the other hand, we agree with the petition that these 
regulations do not necessarily address incidental catch of the species 
and subsequent mortality that may result. However, in 2013, NMFS 
reported a total of 33 prohibited interactions with oceanic whitetip, 
with 88 percent released alive (NMFS, 2014 SAFE Report), which is a 
relatively high rate of survivorship. Thus, while we find that the 
petitioners are incorrect in their assertions that regulations 
pertaining to oceanic whitetip shark in U.S. Atlantic HMS fisheries 
offer minimal to no protection to the oceanic whitetip, we will 
evaluate the potential inadequacy of these and the other existing 
regulations in relation to the threat of overutilization of the species 
during the status review.
    In terms of other national measures, the petition provides a list 
of countries that have prohibited shark fishing in their respective 
waters or created shark-specific marine protected areas, but notes that 
many suffer from enforcement related issues, citing cases of illegal 
fishing and shark finning. The petition also highlights enforceability 
issues associated with international agreements, such as the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), regarding oceanic whitetip shark utilization and trade. The 
oceanic whitetip is listed under Appendix II of CITES, which means 
commercial trade of the species is regulated, but not prohibited. Based 
on the information presented in the petition as well as information in 
our files, we find that oceanic whitetip fins are highly valued and 
preferred in the shark fin trade, and can be identified in the shark 
fin market at the species level. While regulations banning the finning 
of sharks are a common form of shark management, we find that further 
evaluation of the inadequacy of existing regulatory measures is needed 
to determine whether this may be a threat contributing to the 
extinction risk of the species.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Existence

    The petition states that oceanic whitetips have an increased 
susceptibility to extinction because they are a ``K-selected'' or ``K-
strategy'' species. In other words, the petition asserts that the 
biological constraints of the oceanic whitetip shark, such as its low 
reproduction rate (typically 5-6 pups per litter), coupled with the 
time required to reach maturity (approximately 4-7 years) and the 
species' biennial reproductive cycle, contribute to the species' 
vulnerability to harvesting and its inability to recover rapidly. It is 
true that the oceanic whitetip shark and pelagic sharks, in general, 
exhibit relatively slow growth rates and low fecundity; however, 
oceanic whitetip sharks are considered to be a moderately productive 
species relative to other pelagic sharks. Smith et al. (1998) 
investigated the intrinsic rebound potential of Pacific sharks and 
found oceanic whitetips have a moderate rebound potential, because of

[[Page 1385]]

their relatively fast growth and early maturation. Cort[eacute]s (2008) 
calculated population growth rates ([lambda]) of 1.069 
year^-\1\ and a generation time of 11.1 years, which were 
considered intermediary when compared with seven other pelagic species. 
However, estimates of the species' growth rate (von Bertalanffy, k = 
0.10 year^-\1\ in the North Pacific (Seki et al., 1998) and 
between 0.08-0.09 year^-\1\ in the Western Atlantic (Lessa et 
al., 1999)) indicate that oceanic whitetips are slow growing species. 
Additionally, the species' intrinsic rate of increase (r = 0.121 
year^-\1\; Cort[eacute]s et al., 2012) indicates that 
populations are vulnerable to depletion and will be slow to recover 
from over-exploitation based on FAO's low-productivity category (<0.14 
year^-\1\). Finally, an ERA conducted to inform the ICCAT 
categorized the relative risk of overexploitation of the 11 major 
species of pelagic sharks, including the oceanic whitetip 
(Cort[eacute]s et al., 2010). The study derived an overall 
vulnerability ranking for each of the 11 species, which was defined as 
``a measure of the extent to which the impact of a fishery [Atlantic 
longline] on a species will exceed its biological ability to renew 
itself.'' This robust assessment found that oceanic whitetips ranked 
the 5th most vulnerable out of 11 pelagic shark species (Cort[eacute]s 
et al., 2010). More recently, in an ERA that expands upon the 2010 
results, oceanic whitetip ranked 6th out of 20 pelagic shark species in 
terms of its susceptibility to pelagic longline gear, which places the 
oceanic whitetip at a relatively high risk of overexploitation to the 
combined pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean. Likewise, in 
an ERA in the Indian Ocean, oceanic whitetip ranked the 5th most 
vulnerable species of pelagic shark caught in fisheries managed by the 
IOTC (Murua et al., 2012). In summary, the petition, references cited, 
and information in our files comprises substantial information 
indicating that the species may be impacted by ``other natural or 
manmade factors,'' including the life history trait of slow 
productivity, such that further exploration is warranted to determine 
if it is contributing significantly to the species' risk of extinction.

Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    We conclude that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the ESA section 
(4)(a)(1) threats of ``present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range,'' or ``disease or predation'' 
may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for 
the global population of the oceanic whitetip shark. However, we 
conclude that the petition and information in our files do present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
section 4(a)(1) factor ``overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes'' as well as ``inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms'' and ``other manmade or natural 
factors'' may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of 
extinction for the species.

Petition Finding

    Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR 
424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files present substantial scientific and commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the 
oceanic whitetip shark worldwide as threatened or endangered may be 
warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA 
and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will 
commence a status review of the species. During the status review, we 
will determine whether the species is in danger of extinction 
(endangered) or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
(threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We 
now initiate this review, and thus, we consider the oceanic whitetip 
shark to be a candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Within 
12 months of the receipt of the petition (September 21, 2016), we will 
make a finding as to whether listing the species as endangered or 
threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. 
If listing the species is found to be warranted, we will publish a 
proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and 
publishing a final rule.

Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant 
to whether the oceanic whitetip shark is endangered or threatened. 
Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) 
Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species 
throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) 
life history in marine environments, including identified nursery 
grounds; (4) historical and current data on oceanic whitetip shark 
bycatch and retention in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and 
recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and current data on 
oceanic whitetip shark discards in global fisheries; (6) data on the 
trade of oceanic whitetip shark products, including fins, jaws, meat, 
and teeth; (7) any current or planned activities that may adversely 
impact the species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and 
restore the species and its habitats; (9) population structure 
information, such as genetics data; and (10) management, regulatory, 
and enforcement information. 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.

References Cited

    A complete list of references is available upon request to the 
Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

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

    Dated: January 7, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00384 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-00022-P
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1377

present numbers and distribution of the evaluating extinction risk for the species Species Description
species involved and any threats faced at issue (e.g., population abundance and
Distribution
by the species; (3) provides information trends, productivity, spatial structure,
regarding the status of the species over age structure, sex ratio, diversity, The oceanic whitetip shark
all or a significant portion of its range; current and historical range, habitat (Carcharhinus longimanus) is a large,
and (4) is accompanied by the integrity or fragmentation), and the highly migratory oceanic species of
appropriate supporting documentation potential contribution of identified shark, and is one of the most
in the form of bibliographic references, demographic risks to extinction risk for widespread species of shark found
reprints of pertinent publications, the species. We then evaluate the throughout the world in epipelagic
copies of reports or letters from tropical and subtropical waters between
potential links between these
authorities, and maps (50 CFR
demographic risks and the causative 30 °N. and 35 °S. latitude. In the
424.14(b)(2)). Western Atlantic, oceanic whitetips
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the impacts and threats identified in ESA
section 4(a)(1). occur from Maine to Argentina,
petitioner’s request based upon the including the Caribbean and Gulf of
information in the petition including its Information presented on impacts or Mexico. In the Central and Eastern
references, and the information readily threats should be specific to the species Atlantic, the species occurs from
available in our files. We do not conduct and should reasonably suggest that one Madeira, Portugal south to the Gulf of
additional research, and we do not or more of these factors may be Guinea, and possibly in the
solicit information from parties outside operative threats that act or have acted Mediterranean Sea. In the Western
the agency to help us in evaluating the on the species to the point that it may Indian Ocean, the species can be found
petition. We will accept the petitioner’s warrant protection under the ESA. in waters of South Africa, Madagascar,
sources and characterizations of the Broad statements about generalized Mozambique, Mauritius and Seychelles,
information presented, if they appear to threats to the species, or identification and the Red Sea, and India. Oceanic
be based on accepted scientific whitetips are also found throughout the
of factors that could negatively impact
principles, unless we have specific Western and Central Pacific, including
a species, do not constitute substantial
information in our files that indicates China (including Taiwan Island), the
the petition’s information is incorrect, information that listing may be
warranted. We look for information Philippines, New Caledonia, Australia
unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise
indicating that not only is the particular (southern Australian coast), Hawaiian
irrelevant to the requested action.
species exposed to a factor, but that the Islands south to Samoa Islands, Tahiti
Information that is susceptible to more
species may be responding in a negative and Tuamotu Archipelago and west to
than one interpretation or that is
fashion; then we assess the potential Galapagos Islands. Finally, in the
contradicted by other available
significance of that negative response. Eastern Pacific, the species can be found
information will not be dismissed at the
from southern California to Peru,
90-day finding stage, so long as it is Many petitions identify risk including the Gulf of California and
reliable and a reasonable person would classifications made by non- Clipperton Island (Compagno, 1984).
conclude that it supports the governmental organizations, such as the
petitioner’s assertions. Conclusive International Union for the Physical Characteristics
information indicating the species may Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the
meet the ESA’s requirements for listing The oceanic whitetip shark has a
American Fisheries Society, or stocky build with a large rounded first
is not required to make a positive 90-
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction dorsal fin and very long and wide
day finding. We will not conclude that
a lack of specific information alone risk for a species. Risk classifications by paddle-like pectoral fins (Compagno,
negates a positive 90-day finding, if a other organizations or made under other 1984). The head has a short and bluntly
reasonable person would conclude that Federal or state statutes may be rounded nose and small circular eyes
the unknown information itself suggests informative, but such classification with nictitating membranes. The upper
an extinction risk of concern for the alone may not provide the rationale for jaw contains broad, triangular serrated
species at issue. a positive 90-day finding under the teeth, while the teeth in the lower jaw
To make a 90-day finding on a ESA. For example, as explained by are more pointed and are only serrated
petition to list a species, we evaluate NatureServe, their assessments of a near the tip (Compagno, 1984). The first
whether the petition presents species’ conservation status do ‘‘not dorsal fin is very wide with a rounded
substantial scientific or commercial constitute a recommendation by tip, originating just in front of the rear
information indicating the subject NatureServe for listing under the U.S. tips of the pectoral fins. The second
species may be either threatened or Endangered Species Act’’ because dorsal fin originates over or slightly in
endangered, as defined by the ESA. NatureServe assessments ‘‘have front of the base of the anal fin. The
First, we evaluate whether the different criteria, evidence body is grayish bronze to brown in
information presented in the petition, requirements, purposes and taxonomic color, but varies depending upon
along with the information readily geographic location. The underside is
coverage than government lists of
available in our files, indicates that the whitish with a yellow tinge on some
endangered and threatened species, and
petitioned entity constitutes a ‘‘species’’ individuals (Compagno, 1984). The
therefore these two types of lists should species also exhibits a color pattern of
eligible for listing under the ESA. Next,
we evaluate whether the information not be expected to coincide’’ (http:// mottled white tips on its front dorsal,
www.natureserve.org/prodServices/
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

indicates that the species at issue faces caudal, and pectoral fins with black tips
extinction risk that is cause for concern; statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a on its anal fin and on the ventral
this may be indicated in information petition cites such classifications, we surfaces of its pelvic fins. They usually
expressly discussing the species’ status will evaluate the source of information cruise slowly at or near the surface with
and trends, or in information describing that the classification is based upon in their huge pectoral fins conspicuously
impacts and threats to the species. We light of the standards on extinction risk outspread, but can suddenly dash for a
evaluate any information on specific and impacts or threats discussed above. short distance when disturbed
demographic factors pertinent to (Compagno, 1984).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
1378 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Habitat and females mature at around 190–200 oceanic whitetip sharks, but states that
The oceanic whitetip shark is found cm TL (IOTC, 2014). Similar to other the species was formerly one of the most
in a diverse spectrum of locations: It is carcharhinid species, the oceanic common sharks in the ocean and has
a surface-dwelling and predominantly whitetip shark is viviparous with undergone serious declines throughout
oceanic-epipelagic shark, but placental embryonic development. The its global range. The petition asserts that
reproductive cycle is thought to be a global decline of oceanic whitetip
occasionally coastal, tropical and warm
biennial, giving birth on alternate years, sharks has been caused mainly by
temperate shark, usually found far
after a 10–12 month gestation period. commercial fishing (both direct harvest
offshore in the open sea. It has a clear
The number of pups in a litter ranges and bycatch) driven by demands of the
preference for open ocean waters and its
from 1 to 14, with an average of 6, and shark fin trade. In the Northwest and
abundance increases away from
there is a potential positive correlation Central Atlantic, the petition cites
continental and insular shelves (Backus
between female size and number of population declines of up to 70 percent
et al., 1956; Strasburg, 1958; Compagno,
pups per litter (Bonfil et al., 2008; since the early 1990s, and even more
1984). This species sometimes occurs in
Compagno, 1984). Size at birth varies significant historical declines of up to
inshore waters as shallow as 37 m,
slightly between geographic locations, 99 percent in the Gulf of Mexico since
particularly off oceanic islands or in ranging from 55 to 75 cm TL in the
continental areas where the shelf is very the 1950s. In the Southwest and
North Pacific, around 65–75 cm TL in equatorial Atlantic, the petition points
narrow, but is generally found in water the northwestern Atlantic, and 60–65
with the bottom below 184 m, from the to various but limited pieces of
cm TL off South Africa, with information indicating potential
surface to at least 152 m deep. It is reproductive seasons thought to occur
thought to primarily occupy the upper population declines and high fishing
from late spring to summer (Bonfil et al., pressure in this region. In the Western
layer of the water column, tolerating 2008; Compagno, 1984).
temperatures from 18–28° C but and Central Pacific, the petition
preferring > 20° C. Although one was Analysis of Petition and Information provides numerous lines of evidence,
caught in water of 15° C, the species Readily Available in NMFS Files including a recent stock assessment
tends to withdraw from waters that are report as well as other standardized
Below we evaluate the information catch per unit effort (CPUE) data, that
cooling below this temperature (e.g., the provided in the petition and readily
Gulf of Mexico in winter (Compagno, oceanic whitetips have suffered
available in our files to determine if the significant population declines (> 90
1984)). petition presents substantial scientific percent in some areas) as well as
Feeding Ecology or commercial information indicating
declines in size and biomass in both the
that an endangered or threatened listing
Oceanic whitetip sharks are high greater Western and Central Pacific as
may be warranted as a result of any of
trophic level predators in open ocean well as Hawaii. In the Eastern Pacific,
the factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of
ecosystems feeding mainly on teleosts the petition cites limited information
the ESA. If requested to list a global
and cephalopods (Backus, 1954; Bonfil based on nominal CPUE data that
population or, alternatively, a DPS, we
et al., 2008), but studies have also indicates an estimated 95 percent
first determine if the petition presents
reported that they prey on sea birds, decline in bycatch rates of oceanic
substantial information that the
marine mammals, other sharks and rays, whitetips in purse seine fisheries.
petitioned action is warranted for the
molluscs and crustaceans, and even Finally, in the Indian Ocean, the
global population. If it does, then we
garbage (Compagno, 1984; Cortés, 1999). make a positive finding on the petition petition notes that while trend
Based on the species’ diet, the oceanic and conduct a review of the species information is limited for this region, a
whitetip has a high trophic level, with range-wide. If after this review we find limited number of studies as well as
a score of of 4.2 out of a maximum 5.0 that the species does not warrant listing some anecdotal information indicate
(Cortés, 1999) range-wide, then we will consider that oceanic whitetip populations may
whether the populations requested by be declining.
Life History The last IUCN assessment of the
the petition qualify as DPSs and warrant
The oceanic whitetip has an estimated listing. If the petition does not present oceanic whitetip shark was completed
maximum age of 17 years, although only substantial information that the global in 2006 and several estimates of global
a maximum age of 13 years has been population may warrant listing, but it and subpopulation trends and status
confirmed (Lessa et al., 1999). In has requested that we list any distinct have been made and are described in
general, this species is said to attain a populations of the species as threatened the following text. In the Northwest
maximum size of 395.0 cm (Compagno, or endangered, then we consider Atlantic, declines in relative abundance
1984), with theoretical maximum sizes whether the petition provides cited by the petitioner were derived
ranging from 325 to 342 cm total length substantial information that the from standardized catch-rate indices
(TL) (Lessa et al., 1999; Seki et al., 1998, requested population(s) may qualify as estimated from self-reported fisheries
respectively); however, the most DPSs under the discreteness and logbook data by pelagic commercial
common sizes are below 300.0 cm significance criteria of our joint DPS longline fishers in Baum et al. (2003)
(Compagno, 1984). Age of maturity is Policy, and if listing any of those DPSs and Cortés et al. (2007). The logbook
slightly different depending on location: may be warranted. We summarize our data indicated declines of 70 percent
In the southwestern Atlantic, age and analysis and conclusions regarding the from 1992 to 2000 (Baum et al., 2003)
size of maturity in oceanic whitetips information presented by the petitioners and 57 percent from 1992 to 2005
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

was estimated to be 6–7 years and 180– and in our files on the specific ESA (Cortés et al., 2007). However,
190 cm TL, respectively, for both sexes section 4(a)(1) factors that we find may standardized catch-rate analysis of data
(Lessa et al., 1999). In the North Pacific, be affecting the species’ risk of global collected by on-board scientific
females become mature at about 168– extinction below. observers that sample the same pelagic
196 cm TL, and males at 175–189 cm longline fishery resulted in a less
TL, which corresponds to an age of 4 Oceanic Whitetip Status and Trends pronounced decline than the logbook
and 5 years, respectively (Seki et al., The petition does not provide a global series (9 percent vs. 57 percent) while
1998). In the Indian Ocean, both males population abundance estimate for the nominal observer series showed a 36

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1379

percent decline (Cortés et al., 2007). It of oceanic whitetip in the Gulf of uncertainty in the estimates (Clarke et
should be noted that the sample size for Mexico were estimated to be 88 percent al., 2012). This study also found a
oceanic whitetips in the observer rather than 99 percent (Driggers et al., decrease in size of female oceanic
analysis was substantially lower than 2011). whitetips in their core tropical habitat,
for the other species, and changes in Thus, abundance trend estimates and that all individuals sampled from
hook depth, which are particularly derived from standardized catch rate purse-seine fisheries since 2000 have
important in catching oceanic whitetips, indices of the U.S. pelagic longline been immature. More recently, Rice et
were not considered. Thus, these trends fishery suggest that oceanic whitetips al. (2015) confirmed that population
should be regarded with caution. have likely undergone a decline in declines of oceanic whitetips have
Overall, despite the 57 percent decline abundance in this region. However, the continued since the stock assessment
from the standardized logbook data from conflicting evidence regarding the report was completed in 2009.
1992–2005, Cortes et al. (2007) reports magnitude of decline between the Specifically, the standardized oceanic
that the latter portion of the time series fisheries logbook data and observer data whitetip shark trend decreases steadily
shows a stable and possibly increasing cannot be fully resolved at this time. over 1995–2014, with a large decrease
trend for oceanic whitetips from 2000– While the logbook dataset is the largest from 2013–2014 in the standardized
2005. In contrast to the 9 percent available for the western North Atlantic CPUE, indicating continuing population
decline found in the analysis of observer Ocean, the observer dataset is generally declines in this region. In fact, the study
data in Cortes et al. (2007), a more more reliable in terms of consistent concluded that if the population of
recent analysis using observer data identification and reporting, particularly oceanic whitetip shark doubled since
between 1996 and 2005 provides of bycatch species. Data are not the stock assessment, it would still be
additional evidence that the abundance available in the petition or in our own overfished (Rice et al., 2015).
of oceanic whitetips has declined over files to assess the trend in population Separate analyses have also been
this time period. The estimated rate of abundance in this region since 2006. conducted for Hawaiian pelagic longline
change in oceanic whitetips equated to However, because the logbook data from fisheries that found similar declines.
a 50 percent decline (95 percent CI: 17– this region show consistent evidence of Brodziak and Walsh (2013) showed a
70 percent) between1992 and 2005 a significant and continued decline in highly significant decreasing trend in
(Baum and Blanchard, 2010); however, oceanic whitetip sharks, we must standardized CPUE of oceanic whitetip
the authors noted that although model consider this information in our 90-day from 1995 to 2010, resulting in a decline
estimates suggest significant declines in determination. in relative abundance on the order of 90
oceanic whitetip sharks between 1992 The petition cites several lines of percent. These results were similar to
and 2005, the high degree of interannual evidence indicating that oceanic earlier results from Clarke and Walsh
whitetips in the Western and Central (2011) that also found oceanic whitetip
variability in the individual year
Pacific have suffered significant CPUE decreased by greater than 90
estimates suggests that the catch rates
population declines throughout the percent since 1995 in the Hawaii-based
have not been fully standardized (i.e.,
region, including declining trends in pelagic longline fishery. These results
covariates that significantly influence
standardized CPUE data as well as suggest that declines of oceanic whitetip
catch rates of these species were not
biomass and size indices. The most populations are not just regional, but
included in the models) and limits what
reliable evidence likely comes from the rather a Pacific-wide phenomenon.
can reasonably be inferred about the
first and only stock assessment of The petition acknowledged that in the
relative abundance of the species.
oceanic whitetip, in which standardized Eastern Pacific, assessments of oceanic
In the Gulf of Mexico, the petition CPUE series were estimated in the whitetip declines are less prevalent, but
cited Baum and Myers (2004), which Western and Central Pacific based on provided some information that oceanic
compared longline CPUE from research observer data held by the Secretariat of whitetips have suffered significant
surveys from 1954–1957 to observed the Pacific Community (SPC) and population declines as a result of purse-
commercial longline sets from 1995– collected over the years from 1995– seine fisheries in this region. According
1999, and determined that the oceanic 2009. Based on the data in the oceanic to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
whitetip had declined by more than whitetip stock assessment, the median Commission (IATTC), unstandardized
150-fold, or 99.3 percent (95 percent CI: estimate of oceanic whitetip biomass in nominal catch-rate data for the oceanic
98.3–99.8 percent) in the Gulf during the Western Central Pacific in 2010 was whitetip shark from purse-seine sets on
that time. However, the methods and 7,295 tons, which would be equivalent floating objects, unassociated sets and
results of Baum et al. (2003) and Baum to a population of roughly 200,000 dolphin sets all show decreasing trends
and Myers (2004) were critiqued by individuals. This stock assessment since 1994 (IATTC, 2007). On floating
Burgess et al. (2005), who agreed that report (Rice and Harley, 2012) object sets in particular, nominal
abundance of large pelagic sharks had concluded that the catch, CPUE, and incidental catch of oceanic whitetip
declined but presented arguments that size composition data for oceanic declined by approximately 95 percent
the population declines were probably whitetip all show consistent declines (FAO, 2012).
less severe than indicated by these. Of from 1995–2009. In addition to the stock Likewise, in other areas of the world,
particular relevance to oceanic whitetip, assessment report, another study estimates of oceanic whitetip abundance
Burgess et al. (2005) noted that the analyzing catch rates from observer data are limited. In the Indian Ocean, the
change from steel to monofilament confirmed significant population status and abundance of shark species is
leaders between the 1950s and 1990s declines for the oceanic whitetip. poorly known despite a long history of
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

could have reduced the catchability of Standardized CPUE of longline fleets in research and more than 60 years of
all large sharks, and the increase in the the Western and Central Pacific commercial exploitation by large-scale
average depth of sets during the same declined significantly for oceanic tuna fisheries (Romanov et al., 2010).
period could have reduced the whitetip sharks in tropical waters by 17 Available standardized CPUE indices
catchability of the surface-dwelling percent per year (CI: 14 percent to 20 from Japanese and Spanish longline
oceanic whitetip (FAO 2012). After a re- percent) from 1996 to 2009, which fisheries are limited and indicate
analysis of the same data and correcting equates to a total decline in annual conflicting trends, although both
for the aforementioned factors, declines values of 90 percent, with low datasets indicate overall population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
1380 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules

declines ranging from 25–40 percent. amalgamated liver oil sample taken Overutilization for Commercial,
Presently, there is no quantitative stock from three shark species (including Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
assessment and only limited basic oceanic whitetip, silky (Carcharhinus Purposes
fishery indicators are currently available falciformis), and nurse (Ginglymostoma The petition states that the threat of
for oceanic whitetip sharks in the Indian cirratum) sharks) looked at dioxins and overutilization, as a result of historical
Ocean; therefore, the stock status is dioxin-like PCBs in the sample (Cruz- and continued catch of the species in
uncertain. However, in addition to the Nuñez et al., 2009). The petition states both targeted fisheries and, more
limited data available indicating some that the study found very high levels of importantly, incidentally as bycatch, is
level of population decline, anecdotal both of these pollutants in the tested the primary driver of population
information suggests that oceanic liver oil, and, in comparison to levels declines observed for oceanic whitetip
whitetip shark abundance has declined found in smooth hammerhead sharks sharks. More specifically, the petition
over recent decades and the species has (Storelli et al., 2003), these levels would states that because oceanic whitetip fins
become rare throughout much of the likely exceed threshold levels of PCBs are highly valued in the international
Indian Ocean basin over the last 20 for some cell- and molecular-level fin market, with values of $45–85 per
years (IOTC, 2014). With such high effects seen in aquatic vertebrates. kilogram and categorized as ‘‘first
pelagic fishing effort in this region, and However, the former study (Cruz-Nuñez choice’’ in Hong Kong, overutilization
no indication that fishing pressure will et al., 2009) was based on an driven by the shark fin trade has
cease in the foreseeable future, the amalgamated liver oil sample taken resulted in population declines of
species may continue to experience from an unknown composition of three oceanic whitetip. In fact, demand from
declines in this portion of its range. different shark species, the results of the international fin market is
In conclusion, across the species’ which cannot be solely attributed to the considered to be the primary force
global range we find evidence oceanic whitetip. Additionally, of the 33 driving retention of bycatch of this
suggesting that population abundance of species for which published data are species, as the meat is considered to be
the oceanic whitetip shark is declining available, only two have been shown to of low commercial value (Mundy-Taylor
or, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, exhibit PCB concentrations above the and Crooke, 2013). Evidence suggests
potentially stabilized. While data are threshold for organism-level effects in that the oceanic whitetip shark may
still limited with respect to population fish and aquatic mammals (e.g., growth account for approximately 2.8 percent
size and trends, we find the petition and and reproduction, which are impaired at [CI: 1.6–2.1 percent] of the fins
our files sufficient in presenting PCB concentrations >50 mg/g;): The auctioned in Hong Kong, one of the
substantial information on oceanic Greenland shark (Somniosus
whitetip shark abundance, trends, or world’s largest fin-trading centers
microcephalus) and bull shark (Clarke, 2006). This translates to
status to indicate the petitioned action (Carcharhinus leucas) (Gelsleichter and
may be warranted. approximately 200,000 to 1.3 million
Walker, 2010). The petition also states oceanic whitetips that may enter the
ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors that high concentrations of mercury global fin trade each year (Clarke, 2006).
The petition indicated that oceanic found in oceanic whitetip sharks can Given the ease of morphological
whitetip sharks merit listing due to all interact with the presence of any PCBs identification of oceanic whitetip fins
five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: Present and exacerbate mercury neurotoxicity; by traders, the best estimate of oceanic
or threatened destruction, modification, however, the petition did not provide whitetip sharks’ contribution to the
or curtailment of its habitat or range; any evidence that such impacts are trade is likely more accurate than that
overutilization for commercial, presently affecting oceanic whitetip for other species because these fins are
recreational, scientific, or educational populations. less likely to be inadvertently sorted
purposes; disease or predation; Generally, we look for information in into other categories. We found
inadequacy of existing regulatory the petition and in our files to indicate additional evidence in our files that
mechanisms; and other natural or that not only is the particular species oceanic whitetips are highly utilized in
manmade factors affecting its continued exposed to a factor, but that the species the shark fin trade. In a genetic
existence. We discuss each of these may be responding in a negative barcoding study of shark fins from
below based on information in the fashion. Despite providing evidence that markets in Taiwan, oceanic whitetips
petition, and the information readily oceanic whitetip sharks accumulate were one of 20 species identified and
available in our files. pollutants in their tissues, the comprised 0.38 percent of collected fin
petitioners fail to provide evidence that samples. Additionally, oceanic
Present or Threatened Destruction, these concentrations of PCBs and whitetips comprised 1.72 percent of fins
Modification, or Curtailment of Its mercury are causing detrimental genetically tested from markets
Habitat or Range physiological effects to the species or throughout Indonesia (the largest shark
The petition contends that oceanic may be contributing significantly to catching country in the world). In
whitetip sharks are at risk of extinction population declines in oceanic whitetip another genetic barcoding study of fins
throughout their range due to sharks to the point where the species from United Arab Emirates, the fourth
pollutants, especially those that are able may be at risk of extinction. In addition, largest exporter in the world of raw
to bioaccumulate and biomagnify to we did not find any information in our dried shark fins to Hong Kong, the
high concentrations as a result of the files to suggest that pollutants are authors found that the oceanic whitetip
species’ high trophic position, long life, negatively impacting oceanic whitetip represented 0.45 percent of the trade
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

and large size. Of particular concern to shark populations, such that it poses an from Dubai (Jabado et al., 2015).
the petitioners are high polychlorinated extinction risk to the species. As such, Overall, the fact that oceanic whitetips
biphenyl (PCB) and mercury we conclude that the information are highly valued and preferentially
concentrations in oceanic whitetip presented in the petition, and in our retained for their fins, are possibly
shark tissues, which can cause a variety own files, on threats to the habitat of the targeted in some areas, and comprise a
of negative physiological impacts. A oceanic whitetip shark does not provide portion of the Hong Kong fin-trading
study cited by the petition that analyzed substantial information indicating that auction suggests that overutilization via
the pollutant composition of an listing may be warranted for the species. the fin trade may be a threat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1381

contributing to the extinction risk of the Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) recommendation this region, but claims there is
species. 10–07 for the conservation of oceanic significant evidence of decline where
In addition to the many oceanic whitetip sharks, the species has been the species was formerly abundant. In
whitetips that are retained as bycatch in prohibited in U.S. Atlantic pelagic this region, oceanic whitetips were
fisheries throughout its range, the longline fisheries since 2011. However, historically reported as the second-most
petition contends that many oceanic it should be noted that oceanic whitetip abundant shark, outnumbered only by
whitetips incidentally caught as bycatch sharks are still caught as bycatch in this blue shark, in research surveys between
will die even when they are not retained region despite its prohibited status 1992 and 1997 (FAO 2012). However,
as a result of post-capture mortality (i.e., (NMFS, 2012; 2014), although bycatch more recent observer data from the
mortality that occurs once the species is numbers have decreased. Since the Uruguayan longline fleet operating in
hooked and hauled in) and post-release prohibition was implemented in 2011, this region reported low CPUE values
mortality (i.e., mortality that occurs after estimated commercial landings of for oceanic whitetip from 2003 to 2006,
the species is released). Based on the oceanic whitetip declined from 1.1 mt with the highest CPUE recorded not
available information in the petition and in 2011 to only 0.03 mt in 2013 (NMFS exceeding 0.491 individuals/1,000
in our files, we found that oceanic 2012; 2014 SAFE Reports). In 2013, hooks. In total, only 63 oceanic
whitetips have relatively high NMFS reported a total of 33 oceanic whitetips were caught on 2,279,169
survivorship in comparison to other whitetip prohibited interactions, with hooks and most were juveniles
pelagic shark species when caught on 88 percent released alive. In addition to (Domingo et al., 2007). Though these
longline gear. For example, in population declines, the petition cites data do not indicate whether a decline
Portuguese longline fisheries targeting information suggesting that oceanic in the oceanic whitetip population
swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean, 66 whitetip sharks have experienced occurred, they clearly show that this
percent of oceanic whitetips were alive decreasing sizes in this region, species is currently not abundant in this
at haul-back in comparison to smooth indicating unsustainable catch. In area. Additionally, total landings of
hammerhead or silky sharks, of which comparison to surveys conducted in the oceanic whitetip in the Brazilian tuna
only 29 percent and 44 percent, 1950s, mean weight of oceanic whitetip longline fishery have shown a
respectively, were alive at haul-back sharks in the 1990s showed a decline of continuous decline, decreasing from
(Coelho et al., 2012). In addition, a large 35 percent in the Gulf of Mexico (Baum about 640t in 2000 to 80t in 2005.
proportion of the oceanic whitetip and Myers, 2004). Further, off the However, like the previous study, CPUE
sharks taken as bycatch in the U.S. Southeastern United States, most of the data are not available for the species;
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery are observed catches of oceanic whitetip
alive when brought to the vessel (>75 thus, it is impossible to evaluate if such
from 1992–2000 were below the species’ a decline resulted from a lower
percent; (Beerkircher et al., 2002) and size of maturity. In addition to the
between 65–88 percent are still alive at abundance or from changes in
recorded commercial utilization of the catchability, related, for instance, to
haul-back in the Fijian longline fishery species, the petition also notes that
(Gilman et al., 2008). However, we do targeting strategies (Hazin et al., 2007).
illegal, unreported and unregulated However, in another recent study from
agree with the petition that these (IUU) fishing is problematic,
numbers do not account for post-release the South Atlantic, almost 80 percent of
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, the oceanic whitetip sharks caught in
mortality, and although oceanic where the petition states that Mexican
whitetips have higher survivorship than the Brazilian longline tuna fleet between
fishermen are illegally catching an 2004 and 2009 were juveniles (Tolotti et
some other pelagic shark species, these
estimated 3 to 56 percent of the total al., 2010), which, in combination with
sources of mortality must also be taken
U.S. commercial shark quota, and significantly low catches and low
into consideration.
In the Northwest and Central Atlantic between 6 and 108 percent of the Gulf patchy abundance in areas where the
and Gulf of Mexico, the oceanic of Mexico regional commercial quota, species was formerly abundant, may be
whitetip was once described as the most which further contributes to indicative of significant fishing pressure
common pelagic shark throughout the overutilization of the species. However, leading to population declines. Further,
warm-temperate and tropical waters of the quotas the petition refers to are increases in effort of the Spanish
the Atlantic and beyond the continental actually for large coastal sharks rather longline fleet, as well as the expansion
shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. Historically, than pelagic sharks, and most of the of fishing activities by southern coastal
oceanic whitetips were caught as species caught are not oceanic countries, such as Brazil and Uruguay,
bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries whitetips. Overall, evidence suggests occurred in the early to mid-1990s
targeting tuna and swordfish in this that oceanic whitetip sharks have (FAO, 2012), which may have
region, with an estimated 8,526 suffered significant population declines contributed to declines in oceanic
individuals recorded as captured in in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of whitetip abundance. Without any robust
these fisheries logbooks from 1992 to Mexico, likely as a result of fishing standardized fisheries data to account
2000 (Baum et al., 2003). The petition pressure. Although the magnitude of for various factors that may affect the
contends that due to continued population declines remains uncertain, catch rate of oceanic whitetip, the
exploitation, beginning in the 1950s and we find substantial evidence to suggest species’ abundance and trends in this
1960s, combined with the species’ that overutilization may be a threat to region are highly uncertain. However,
vulnerability to pelagic longline the species in this region that warrants we agree with the petition that the
fisheries, oceanic whitetips have further exploration to determine available information indicates that
whether it contributes significantly to
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

undergone significant population overutilization may be a threat to the
declines in this region. As previously the species’ extinction risk. species in this region, as evidenced by
described, estimates of decline vary, and In the Southwest and equatorial low catch rates and landings in various
range from up to 70 percent in the Atlantic, the oceanic whitetip is fisheries that comport with increases in
Northwest Atlantic and up to 88 percent commonly caught in both longline and fishing effort, as well as the prevalence
in the Gulf of Mexico. In order to purse-seine fisheries. The petition notes of immature sharks comprising the
implement the International that data concerning oceanic whitetip majority of catches of major pelagic
Commission for the Conservation of population trends are less abundant in longline fishing fleets in the region.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
1382 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules

As in the Atlantic Ocean, the oceanic Philippines, which are two major shark abundance on the order of 90 percent
whitetip was also formerly one of the catching nations in this region. due to increased sets with zero catches
most abundant sharks throughout the Although standardized CPUE data for as well as decreased CPUE on sets with
Pacific Ocean. Evidence shows that the purse-seine fishery are not available, positive catch. The authors of this study
oceanic whitetips commonly interact the oceanic whitetip is one of only two concluded that relative abundance of
with both longline and purse-seine species frequently caught in this fishery oceanic whitetip declined within a few
fisheries throughout the Pacific, with at and has exhibited declines that years of the expansion of the longline
least 20 member nations of the Western resemble those in the longline fishery fishery.
and Central Pacific Fisheries (Clarke et al., 2012). As a result of the In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, oceanic
Commission recording the species in intensive fishing pressure in the whitetip sharks are most often taken as
their fisheries. In the Western and Western and Central Pacific, size trends bycatch by ocean purse-seine fisheries.
Central Pacific, where sharks represent for oceanic whitetip are also declining, The oceanic whitetip shark was
25 percent of the longline fishery catch, which may also be indicative of historically described as the second
observer data show that the oceanic overutilization of the species, most common shark caught by the
whitetip shark is the 5th most common particularly due to the potential purse-seine fishery in the EPO
species of shark caught as bycatch out correlation between maternal length and (Compagno, 1984), and information
of a total 49 species reported by litter size. Clarke et al. (2012) report the collected by observers between 1993
observers, and represents approximately length of female oceanic whitetip sharks and 2004 indicates this is still the case.
3 percent of the total shark catch. from the longline fishery declined in In a recent effort to evaluate species
their core tropical habitat. Similarly, composition of bycatch in Eastern
Additionally, the oceanic whitetip is the
while Rice et al. (2015) more recently Pacific purse-seine fisheries, species
2nd most common species of shark
report that trends in oceanic whitetip identification data for the Shark
caught as bycatch in purse-seine
median length are stable, the majority of Characteristics Sampling Program
fisheries in this region, representing
sharks observed are immature. showed that between March 2000 and
nearly 11 percent of the total shark
Similarly, since 2000, 100 percent of March 2001, the oceanic whitetip
catch (Molony, 2007). In a recent stock
oceanic whitetips sampled in the purse- comprised 20.8 percent of the total
assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in
seine fisheries have been immature shark bycatch, second only to silky
the Western and Central Pacific, the
(Clarke et al., 2012). Thus, the sharks (Román-Verdesoto and Orozco-
greatest impact on the species is significant declining trends observed in Zöller, 2005). Since the mid-1980s, the
attributed to bycatch from the longline all available abundance indices (e.g., tuna purse-seine fishery in the Pacific
fishery, with lesser impacts from target standardized CPUE, biomass and has been rapidly expanding (Williams
longline activities and purse-seining average size) of oceanic whitetips as a and Terawasi, 2011), and despite the
(Rice and Harley, 2012). From 1995 to result of fishing mortality in both increase in fishery effort (or perhaps as
2009, rates of fishing mortality longline and purse-seine fisheries a consequence of this increased fishing
consistently increased, driven mainly by indicate that overutilization of the pressure), incidental catch of oceanic
the increased effort in the longline fleet species may be occurring in the Western whitetips declined by more than 95
over the same time period, and remain and Central Pacific. percent in the Eastern Pacific between
substantially above maximum In the Central Pacific, oceanic 1994 and 2006. However, this decline is
sustainable yield (MSY) (i.e., the point whitetips are commonly caught as based on an unstandardized index using
at which there would be an equilibrium) bycatch in Hawaii-based fisheries, and observer data from 100 percent of sets
for the species. As a result of this comprise 3 percent of the shark catch during the relatively short period that
increasing fishing pressure, estimated (Brodziak and Walsh, 2013). Based on fish aggregating devices have been used
spawning biomass declined by 86 observer data from the Pacific Islands (FAO, 2012). Overall, we found that
percent over the time period, which is Regional Observer Program (PIROP), apart from blue and silky sharks, there
far below spawning biomass at MSY, oceanic whitetip shark mean annual are no stock assessments available for
indicating that the stock is overfished. nominal CPUE decreased significantly shark species in the Eastern Pacific, and
Further, estimates of the stock depletion from 0.428/1000 hooks in 1995 to 0.036/ hence the impacts of bycatch on the
are that the total biomass has been 1000 hooks in 2010. This reflected a population are unknown (IATTC, 2014).
reduced to only 6.6 percent of the significant decrease in nominal CPUE Nonetheless, a potential decline of this
theoretical equilibrium virgin biomass. on longline sets with positive catch magnitude over a short period of time
In fact, the stock assessment concluded from 1.690/1000 hooks to 0.773/1000 indicates that overutilization of the
that fishing mortality on oceanic hooks, and a significant increase in oceanic whitetip may be occurring in
whitetip sharks in the Western and longline sets with zero catches from Eastern Pacific purse-seine fisheries,
Central Pacific has increased to levels 74.7 percent in 1995 to 95.3 percent in and warrants further investigation to
6.5 times what is sustainable, thus 2010. When standardized to account for determine whether it may be
concluding that overfishing is still factors such as sea surface temperature, contributing significantly to the species’
occurring. Given that fishing pressure fishery sector, and latitude, oceanic extinction risk.
began well before the start of this time whitetip CPUE declined by more than In the Indian Ocean, oceanic whitetip
series, the authors of the stock 90 percent in the Hawaii-based longline sharks are targeted by some semi-
assessment noted that it was not fishery since 1995. Brodziak and Walsh industrial and artisanal fisheries and are
assumed that the oceanic whitetip (2013) found similar results by using bycatch of industrial fisheries, including
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

population was at an unfished state of several models in order to make an gillnet fisheries, pelagic longlines
equilibrium at the start of the model accurate assessment of the species’ targeting tuna and swordfish and purse-
(i.e., 1995). Thus, these declines do not CPUE from 1995 to 2010 in the Hawaii- seine fisheries. Countries that fish for
reflect total historical population based shallow-set and deep-set longline various pelagic species of sharks
declines for the species in this region fisheries. They also found a highly include: Egypt, India, Iran, Oman, Saudi
prior to the study. Further, this study significant decreasing trend in Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates,
does not include removals of oceanic standardized CPUE from 1995 to 2010, and Yemen, where the probable or
whitetips from Indonesia and the resulting in a decline in relative actual status of shark populations is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1383

unknown, and Maldives, Kenya, available standardized CPUE indices continue to experience declines as a
Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, and from Japanese and Spanish longline result of overutilization from both direct
United Republic of Tanzania, where the fleets indicate conflicting trends, with and indirect fishing pressure. In
actual status of shark populations is no quantitative stock assessment and summary, the petition, references cited,
presumed to be fully to over-exploited only limited basic fishery indicators and information in our files comprise
(DeYoung, 2006). While fisheries are currently available for the species. substantial information indicating that
directed at other species, oceanic However, there are no CPUE data listing may be warranted because of
whitetip sharks are commonly caught as available from gillnet fisheries, which is overutilization for commercial
bycatch and catch rates are considered responsible for the majority of catches of purposes.
high (IOTC, 2014); however, the oceanic whitetips in the Indian Ocean Disease and Predation
available information from Indian areas- (Murua et al., 2013). Therefore, the
fleets reports relatively low prevalence IOTC noted in 2014 that the stock status The petition contends that the oceanic
of this species among target and/or other of oceanic whitetip is uncertain. whitetip shark is at risk of extinction
bycatch species caught by longliners However, the IOTC also reported in throughout its range because some
2014 that ‘‘maintaining or increasing oceanic whitetip sharks are infected
targeting swordfish or tuna (Ramos-
effort in this region will probably result with a highly pathogenic bacterium,
Cartelle et al., 2012). Available fisheries
in declines in biomass, productivity and Vibrio harveyi (Zhang, et al., 2009),
data from Japanese and Spanish
CPUE’’ for oceanic whitetip sharks which is known to cause deep dermal
longline fishing fleets show conflicting
(IOTC, 2014). Thus, while catch data are lesions, gastro-enteritis, eye lesions,
catch trends. Standardized CPUE of the infectious necrotizing enteritis,
Japanese longline fleet in the Indian incomplete and cannot be used to
estimate abundance levels or determine vasculitis, and skin ulcers in vertebrate
Ocean show a gradual decline of almost marine species (Austin and Zhang,
40 percent from 2003 to 2009 (Semba the magnitude of catches or trends for
oceanic whitetips at this time, pelagic 2006). The petition asserts that since
and Yokawa, 2011). Standardized CPUE this bacterium is considered to be more
of the Spanish longline fishery from fishing effort in this region is high, with
no indication that fishing pressure will serious in immunocompromised hosts
1998 to 2011 showed large historical (Austin and Zhang, 2006), it may act
fluctuations and a general decreasing cease in the foreseeable future. Given
the foregoing information, we conclude synergistically with the potential high
trend in 1998–2007, followed by an pollutant loads that oceanic whitetip
increase thereafter. Overall, the that overutilization may be a threat to
sharks experience, creating an increased
magnitude of decline in this study was the species in the Indian Ocean and
threat to the species. As noted
estimated to be about 25–30 percent warrants further exploration to
previously, we generally look for
(Ramos-Cartelle et al., 2012). Nominal determine if it is contributing
information in the petition and in our
catches for oceanic whitetips also significantly to the extinction risk of the
files to indicate that not only is the
declined over this time period, peaking species.
particular species exposed to a factor,
in 1999 with 3,050 mt and steadily Overall, there is considerable but that the species may be responding
declining to 245 mt in 2009. However, uncertainty regarding the actual catch in a negative fashion. However, the
catch estimates for oceanic whitetip levels and trends of oceanic whitetip petition did not provide, nor could we
shark are uncertain, as only five shark occurring throughout its range; find in our files, any supporting
contracting parties (CPCs) have reported however, it is likely that these rates are evidence that this bacterium is
detailed data on shark landings (i.e., significantly under-reported due to a contributing to population declines in
Australia, EU (Spain, Portugal and lack of comprehensive observer oceanic whitetip sharks to the point
United Kingdom), I.R. Iran, South coverage in areas of its range in which where the species may be at risk of
Africa, and Sri Lanka) (IOTC, 2014). In the highest fishing pressure occurs, as extinction.
fact, catches of oceanic whitetips in the well as a tendency for fishers to not
Indian Ocean are thought to be nearly record discards in fishery logbooks. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
20 times higher than the estimates Nevertheless, given the prevalence of Mechanisms
reported in the Indian Ocean Tuna oceanic whitetip as incidental catch The petition asserts that the existing
Commission (IOTC) database (Murua et throughout its range and its high value international, regional, and national
al., 2013). Additionally, oceanic in the shark fin trade, combined with regulations do not adequately protect
whitetips were found to have relatively the species’ low to moderate the oceanic whitetip shark and have
high vulnerability to pelagic longline productivity (see Factor E—Other or been insufficient in preventing
fisheries in the Indian Ocean. In 2012, Natural Manmade Factors), bycatch- population declines. Additionally, the
an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) related fishing mortality may be a threat petition asserts that most existing
was developed by the IOTC Scientific placing the species at an increased risk regulations are inadequate because they
Committee to quantify which shark of extinction. Overall, trends in the limit retention of the oceanic whitetip
species are most at risk from the high Northwest and Central Atlantic Ocean shark and argues that the focus should
levels of pelagic longline fishing and Gulf of Mexico suggest that the be on limiting the catch of oceanic
pressure. In this ERA, the IOTC species experienced historical declines whitetip sharks in order to decrease
Scientific Committee noted that oceanic from overexploitation, but may be fishery-related mortality, particularly
whitetip received a high vulnerability stabilized in recent years, although there given what the petition contends are the
ranking (No. 5 out of 17) for longline is considerable uncertainty regarding species’ high post-catch mortality rates.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

gear because it was estimated as one of these trends. Across the Pacific, Among the regulations that the petition
the least productive shark species, and numerous lines of evidence suggest that cites as inadequate are shark finning
was also characterized by a high oceanic whitetip sharks are bans and shark finning regulations.
susceptibility to longline gear (Murua et experiencing significant and continued Shark finning bans are currently one of
al., 2012). Oceanic whitetip shark was population declines as a result of fishing the most widely used forms of shark
also estimated as being the most pressure. Elsewhere across the species’ utilization regulations, and the petition
vulnerable shark species to purse-seine range, information in the petition and in notes that 21 countries, the European
gear (Murua et al., 2013). Overall, our files suggests that the species may Union, and 9 Regional Fisheries

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
1384 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Management Organizations (RFMOs) specifically, the petition asserts that the pertaining to oceanic whitetip shark in
have implemented shark finning bans catch quota for the pelagic complex U.S. Atlantic HMS fisheries offer
(CITES, 2013). However, the petition under the U.S. HMS FMP of 488 mt, in minimal to no protection to the oceanic
contends that these shark finning bans which catches of oceanic whitetip is whitetip, we will evaluate the potential
are often ineffective as enforcement is combined with other species, is inadequacy of these and the other
difficult or lacking, implementation in inadequate because it is not species- existing regulations in relation to the
RFMOs and international agreements is specific, and, as a result, all or none of threat of overutilization of the species
not always binding, and catches often go the 488 tons of sharks from this quota during the status review.
unreported (CITES, 2013). The petition could be oceanic whitetips. The petition In terms of other national measures,
also states that shark finning regulations also states that the final rule to the petition provides a list of countries
tend to have loopholes that can be implement the 2010 International that have prohibited shark fishing in
exploited to allow continued finning. Commission on the Conservation of their respective waters or created shark-
Many shark finning regulations require Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) specific marine protected areas, but
that both the carcass and the fins be recommendations, which prohibits the notes that many suffer from enforcement
landed, but not necessarily naturally retention, transshipping, landing, related issues, citing cases of illegal
attached. Instead, the regulations storing, or selling of oceanic whitetip fishing and shark finning. The petition
impose a fin to carcass ratio weight, sharks caught in association with also highlights enforceability issues
which is usually 5 percent (Dulvy et al., fisheries managed by ICCAT, is associated with international
2008). This allows fishermen to inadequate because these regulations are agreements, such as the Convention on
preferentially retain the carcasses of International Trade in Endangered
limited in scope, such that some
valuable species and valuable fins from Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
commercial and recreational fisheries
other species in order to maximize (CITES), regarding oceanic whitetip
are still allowed to catch oceanic
profits (Abercrombie et al., 2005). In shark utilization and trade. The oceanic
whitetip sharks. The petition also
2010, the United States passed the whitetip is listed under Appendix II of
asserts that these regulations are
Shark Conservation Act, which except CITES, which means commercial trade
inadequate because they only apply in
for a limited exception regarding of the species is regulated, but not
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico in
smooth dogfish, requires all sharks to be prohibited. Based on the information
Federal waters. We disagree with these
landed with their fins attached, presented in the petition as well as
assertions by the petition. We find that information in our files, we find that
abolishing the fin to carcass ratio U.S. national fishing regulations include
(although this requirement was already oceanic whitetip fins are highly valued
numerous regulatory mechanisms for and preferred in the shark fin trade, and
implemented in 2008). Additionally, both sharks in general, and oceanic
several U.S. states have prohibited the can be identified in the shark fin market
whitetip specifically, that may help at the species level. While regulations
sale or trade of shark fins/products as protect the species. Since 2002, well
well, including Hawaii, Oregon, banning the finning of sharks are a
before the prohibition of oceanic common form of shark management, we
Washington, California, Illinois, whitetips in Atlantic HMS pelagic
Maryland, Delaware, New York and find that further evaluation of the
longline fisheries, total commercial inadequacy of existing regulatory
Massachusetts, subsequently decreasing landings of oceanic whitetip have rarely measures is needed to determine
the United States’ contribution to the fin exceeded 1 mt, which represents a whether this may be a threat
trade. For example, after the state of minimal portion of the 488 mt quota for contributing to the extinction risk of the
Hawaii prohibited finning in its waters the Pelagic complex group. Given that species.
in 2000 and required shark fins to be most U.S.-flagged vessels fish at the
landed with their corresponding northernmost part of the range of the Other Natural or Manmade Factors
carcasses in the state, shark fin imports oceanic whitetip, the low abundance of Affecting Its Existence
from the United States into Hong Kong this species likely reflects the The petition states that oceanic
declined significantly (54 percent distribution of the fishery (Beerkircher whitetips have an increased
decrease, from 374 to 171 tonnes) as et al., 2002). Additionally, since the susceptibility to extinction because they
Hawaii could no longer be used as a fin implementation of ICCAT are a ‘‘K-selected’’ or ‘‘K-strategy’’
trading center for the international recommendations in 2011, estimated species. In other words, the petition
fisheries operating and finning in the commercial landings of oceanic asserts that the biological constraints of
Central Pacific (Miller et al., 2014). whitetip declined from 1.1 mt to only the oceanic whitetip shark, such as its
However, in other parts of the species’ 0.03 mt (NMFS, 2012 and 2014 SAFE low reproduction rate (typically 5–6
range, the inadequacy of existing Reports). Further, oceanic whitetip pups per litter), coupled with the time
finning bans may be contributing to sharks are not targeted in U.S. required to reach maturity
further declines in the species by recreational fisheries. In fact, estimates (approximately 4–7 years) and the
allowing the wasteful practice of shark of recreationally harvested oceanic species’ biennial reproductive cycle,
finning at sea to continue. whitetips have been zero since 2002. On contribute to the species’ vulnerability
In the U.S. Atlantic, oceanic whitetip the other hand, we agree with the to harvesting and its inability to recover
sharks are managed as part of the petition that these regulations do not rapidly. It is true that the oceanic
Pelagic shark complex under the U.S. necessarily address incidental catch of whitetip shark and pelagic sharks, in
Highly Migratory Species Fishery the species and subsequent mortality general, exhibit relatively slow growth
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Management Plan (HMS FMP). The that may result. However, in 2013, rates and low fecundity; however,
petition states that while the United NMFS reported a total of 33 prohibited oceanic whitetip sharks are considered
States has a patchwork of measures that interactions with oceanic whitetip, with to be a moderately productive species
protect the oceanic whitetip to varying 88 percent released alive (NMFS, 2014 relative to other pelagic sharks. Smith et
degrees, none of these measures (i.e., SAFE Report), which is a relatively high al. (1998) investigated the intrinsic
catch quotas, species-specific retention rate of survivorship. Thus, while we rebound potential of Pacific sharks and
bans, and shark-finning bans) are find that the petitioners are incorrect in found oceanic whitetips have a
adequate to protect the species. More their assertions that regulations moderate rebound potential, because of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1385

their relatively fast growth and early Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors rule and solicit public comments before
maturation. Cortés (2008) calculated developing and publishing a final rule.
population growth rates (l) of 1.069 We conclude that the petition does
not present substantial scientific or Information Solicited
year¥1 and a generation time of 11.1
years, which were considered commercial information indicating that To ensure that the status review is
intermediary when compared with the ESA section (4)(a)(1) threats of based on the best available scientific
seven other pelagic species. However, ‘‘present or threatened destruction, and commercial data, we are soliciting
estimates of the species’ growth rate modification, or curtailment of its information relevant to whether the
(von Bertalanffy, k = 0.10 year¥1 in the habitat or range,’’ or ‘‘disease or oceanic whitetip shark is endangered or
North Pacific (Seki et al., 1998) and predation’’ may be causing or threatened. Specifically, we are
between 0.08–0.09 year¥1 in the contributing to an increased risk of soliciting information in the following
Western Atlantic (Lessa et al., 1999)) extinction for the global population of areas: (1) Historical and current
indicate that oceanic whitetips are slow the oceanic whitetip shark. However, distribution and abundance of this
growing species. Additionally, the we conclude that the petition and species throughout its range; (2)
species’ intrinsic rate of increase (r = information in our files do present historical and current population
0.121 year¥1; Cortés et al., 2012) substantial scientific or commercial trends; (3) life history in marine
indicates that populations are information indicating that the section environments, including identified
vulnerable to depletion and will be slow 4(a)(1) factor ‘‘overutilization for nursery grounds; (4) historical and
to recover from over-exploitation based commercial, recreational, scientific, or current data on oceanic whitetip shark
on FAO’s low-productivity category educational purposes’’ as well as bycatch and retention in industrial,
(<0.14 year¥1). Finally, an ERA ‘‘inadequacy of existing regulatory commercial, artisanal, and recreational
conducted to inform the ICCAT mechanisms’’ and ‘‘other manmade or fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and
categorized the relative risk of natural factors’’ may be causing or current data on oceanic whitetip shark
overexploitation of the 11 major species contributing to an increased risk of discards in global fisheries; (6) data on
of pelagic sharks, including the oceanic extinction for the species. the trade of oceanic whitetip shark
whitetip (Cortés et al., 2010). The study products, including fins, jaws, meat,
derived an overall vulnerability ranking Petition Finding
and teeth; (7) any current or planned
for each of the 11 species, which was activities that may adversely impact the
Based on the above information and
defined as ‘‘a measure of the extent to species; (8) ongoing or planned efforts to
the criteria specified in 50 CFR
which the impact of a fishery [Atlantic protect and restore the species and its
longline] on a species will exceed its 424.14(b)(2), we find that the petition
and information readily available in our habitats; (9) population structure
biological ability to renew itself.’’ This information, such as genetics data; and
robust assessment found that oceanic files present substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that (10) management, regulatory, and
whitetips ranked the 5th most enforcement information. We request
vulnerable out of 11 pelagic shark the petitioned action of listing the
oceanic whitetip shark worldwide as that all information be accompanied by:
species (Cortés et al., 2010). More (1) Supporting documentation such as
recently, in an ERA that expands upon threatened or endangered may be
warranted. Therefore, in accordance maps, bibliographic references, or
the 2010 results, oceanic whitetip reprints of pertinent publications; and
ranked 6th out of 20 pelagic shark with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and
NMFS’ implementing regulations (50 (2) the submitter’s name, address, and
species in terms of its susceptibility to any association, institution, or business
pelagic longline gear, which places the CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will commence a
status review of the species. During the that the person represents.
oceanic whitetip at a relatively high risk
of overexploitation to the combined status review, we will determine References Cited
pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic whether the species is in danger of
extinction (endangered) or likely to A complete list of references is
Ocean. Likewise, in an ERA in the available upon request to the Office of
Indian Ocean, oceanic whitetip ranked become so within the foreseeable future
Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).
the 5th most vulnerable species of (threatened) throughout all or a
pelagic shark caught in fisheries significant portion of its range. We now Authority
managed by the IOTC (Murua et al., initiate this review, and thus, we
The authority for this action is the
2012). In summary, the petition, consider the oceanic whitetip shark to
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
references cited, and information in our be a candidate species (69 FR 19975;
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
files comprises substantial information April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of
indicating that the species may be the receipt of the petition (September Dated: January 7, 2016.
impacted by ‘‘other natural or manmade 21, 2016), we will make a finding as to Samuel D. Rauch, III,
factors,’’ including the life history trait whether listing the species as Deputy Assistant Administrator for
of slow productivity, such that further endangered or threatened is warranted Regulatory Programs, National Marine
exploration is warranted to determine if as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Fisheries Service.
it is contributing significantly to the ESA. If listing the species is found to be [FR Doc. 2016–00384 Filed 1–11–16; 8:45 am]
species’ risk of extinction. warranted, we will publish a proposed BILLING CODE 3510–00022–P
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Jan 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1
Document Created: 2016-01-12 01:23:12
Document Modified: 2016-01-12 01:23:12
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, and initiation of status review.
Dates		Information and comments on the subject action must be received by March 14, 2016.
Contact		Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (301) 427-8491.
FR Citation		81 FR 1376
RIN Number		0648-XE31
CFR Citation		50 CFR 223 50 CFR 224
81 FR 1376 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 7 (January 12, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
