82_FR_21811 82 FR 21722 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List 6 Foreign Species of Elasmobranchs Under the Endangered Species Act

82 FR 21722 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List 6 Foreign Species of Elasmobranchs Under the Endangered Species Act

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 89 (May 10, 2017)

Page Range21722-21741
FR Document2017-09416

We, NMFS, issue a final rule to list six foreign marine elasmobranch species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These six species are the daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus), Brazilian guitarfish (Rhinobatos horkelii), striped smoothhound shark (Mustelus fasciatus), narrownose smoothhound shark (Mustelus schmitti), spiny angelshark (Squatina guggenheim), and Argentine angelshark (Squatina argentina). We are publishing this final rule to implement our final determination to list the daggernose shark, Brazilian guitarfish, striped smoothhound shark, spiny angelshark and Argentine angelshark as endangered species under the ESA, and the narrownose smoothhound shark as a threatened species under the ESA. We have reviewed the status of these six species, including efforts being made to protect these species, and considered public comments submitted on the proposed rule as well as new information received since publication of the proposed rule. We have made our final determinations based on the best scientific and commercial data available. We will not designate critical habitat for any of these species because the geographical areas occupied by these species are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not identified any unoccupied areas within U.S. jurisdiction that are essential to the conservation of any of these species.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21722-21741]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09416]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 150909839-7369-02]
RIN 0648-XE184


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List 
6 Foreign Species of Elasmobranchs Under the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue a final rule to list six foreign marine 
elasmobranch species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These six 
species are the daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus), Brazilian 
guitarfish (Rhinobatos horkelii), striped smoothhound shark (Mustelus 
fasciatus), narrownose smoothhound shark (Mustelus schmitti), spiny 
angelshark (Squatina guggenheim), and Argentine angelshark (Squatina 
argentina). We are publishing this final rule to implement our final 
determination to list the daggernose shark, Brazilian guitarfish, 
striped smoothhound shark, spiny angelshark and Argentine angelshark as 
endangered species under the ESA, and the narrownose smoothhound shark 
as a threatened species under the ESA. We have reviewed the status of 
these six species, including efforts being made to protect these 
species, and considered public comments submitted on the proposed rule 
as well as new information received since publication of the proposed 
rule. We have made our final determinations based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available. We will not designate 
critical habitat for any of these species because the geographical 
areas occupied by these species are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, 
and we have not identified any unoccupied areas within U.S. 
jurisdiction that are essential to the conservation of any of these 
species.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species Division, NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8403. Copies of the petition, 
status review reports, Federal Register notices, and the list of 
references are available on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians 
to list 81 marine species or subpopulations as threatened or endangered 
under the ESA. This petition included species from many different 
taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 90-day findings in batches by 
taxonomic group. We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted 
for 24 of the species and 3 of the subpopulations and announced the 
initiation of status reviews for each of the 24 species and 3 
subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 
2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; 
and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). On December 7, 2015, we published 
a proposed rule to list the daggernose shark, Brazilian guitarfish, 
striped smoothhound shark, and Argentine angelshark as endangered 
species under the ESA, and the narrownose smoothhound shark and

[[Page 21723]]

spiny angelshark as threatened species under the ESA (80 FR 76067). We 
requested public comment on information in the status reviews and 
proposed rule, and the comment period was open through February 5, 
2016. This final rule provides a discussion of the information we 
received during and after the public comment period and our final 
determination on the petition to list these six foreign marine 
elasmobranchs under the ESA. The status of the findings and relevant 
Federal Register notices for the other 18 species and 3 subpopulations 
can be found on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened 
or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this 
determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms 
constitutes a ``species'' under the ESA, then whether the status of the 
species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. 
Section 3 of the ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any subspecies 
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of 
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 
mature.''
    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species 
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is 
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' We interpret an 
``endangered species'' to be one that is presently in danger of 
extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the other hand, is not 
presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the 
primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered 
species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, 
either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future 
(threatened).
    When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened 
under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable 
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the 
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the 
species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers 
the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability 
of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the 
reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events 
on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may 
be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are 
available, or which operate across different time scales, the 
foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number 
of years.
    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any 
species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of 
the following five factors: The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 
disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 
or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 
We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the 
best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a 
review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts 
being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species.
    In making a listing determination, we first determine whether a 
petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a ``species.'' Next, 
using the best available information gathered during the status review 
for the species, we assess the extinction risk of the species. In our 
extinction risk assessment, we considered the best available 
information to evaluate the level of risk faced by each of the six 
species. For each extinction risk analysis, we evaluated the species' 
demographic risks, such as low abundance and productivity, and threats 
to the species including those related to the factors specified by the 
ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), and then synthesized this information to 
estimate the extinction risk of each species.
    Because species-specific information (such as current abundance) is 
sparse, qualitative ``reference levels'' of risk were used to describe 
extinction risk. The definitions of the qualitative ``reference 
levels'' of extinction risk--``Low Risk,'' ``Moderate Risk,'' and 
``High Risk''--were as described here. A species is at ``Low Risk'' of 
extinction if it exhibits a trajectory indicating that it is unlikely 
to be at a moderate level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future 
(see description of ``Moderate Risk'' below). A species may be at low 
risk of extinction due to its present demographics (i.e., stable or 
increasing trends in abundance/population growth, spatial structure and 
connectivity, and/or diversity) with projected threats likely to have 
insignificant impacts on these demographic trends. ``Moderate Risk''--a 
species is at moderate risk of extinction if it exhibits a trajectory 
indicating that it will more likely than not be at a high level of 
extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of ``High 
Risk'' below). A species may be at moderate risk of extinction due to 
its present demographics (i.e., declining trends in abundance/
population growth, spatial structure and connectivity, and/or diversity 
and resilience) and/or projected threats and its likely response to 
those threats. ``High Risk''--a species is at high risk of extinction 
when it is at or near a level of abundance, spatial structure and 
connectivity, and/or diversity that place its persistence in question. 
The demographics of the species may be strongly influenced by 
stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species may be at 
high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., 
confinement to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat; or disease epidemic) that 
are likely to create such imminent demographic risks.
    After completion of the extinction risk analysis, we then assess 
efforts being made to protect the species to determine if these 
conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats. 
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a 
listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those 
efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect 
the species. Finally, taking into account the species' extinction risk, 
threats, and any protective efforts identified from the above 
assessment, we determine if the species meets the definition of 
``endangered species'' or ``threatened species.''

Summary of Comments

    In response to our request for public comments on the proposed 
rule, we received information and/or comments from three parties. One 
commenter agreed with the listing and provided no new or substantive 
data or information relevant to the listing of these six species. We 
also directly solicited comments from the foreign ambassadors of 
countries where the six elasmobranch species occur and received a 
response from the Embassy of the Argentine Republic. Summaries of the 
substantive comments received from both the public comment period and 
the Embassy of the Argentine Republic, and our responses, are provided 
below by topic and species.

[[Page 21724]]

Comments on ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

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

Daggernose Shark
    Comment 1: One commenter noted that we should look more closely at 
the threat of habitat loss for the daggernose shark, and, in 
particular, increasing threats to mangrove habitat as a result of 
rising sea levels due to climate change, increasing human populations 
in coastal areas, and increasing mariculture activities near mangroves. 
The commenter suggested that we consider the extent to which these 
threats may harm the species, both now and in the foreseeable future, 
and the extent to which this threat is, or may become, operative in 
portions of the species' range, even if this threat has been 
neutralized to some degree in other parts of the species' range.
    Response: As noted in the proposed rule (80 FR 76068; December 7, 
2015), we considered the information in the status review report 
(Casselberry and Carlson 2015a), information submitted by the public, 
as well as information we compiled separately to assess the extinction 
risk of the daggernose shark. While the status review presented data on 
mangrove forest declines, we did not find evidence that this was a 
significant threat to the species. As noted in the status review, 
daggernose sharks are found in shallow waters along mangrove-lined 
coasts, but their reliance specifically on the presence of mangroves 
within these areas is unknown. Rather, the status review notes that 
daggernose sharks are most abundant in estuarine and river mouth areas, 
preferring low lying and indented coastlines, and are strongly 
associated with rocky or muddy bottoms and highly turbid waters. There 
is no indication that mangroves are an integral feature of the species' 
habitat or that the species has an obligate relationship with 
mangroves. As such, we do not find that available information indicates 
that the decline in mangrove forests in portions of the species' range 
is a threat that significantly contributes to the species' risk of 
extinction.
    Comment 2: One commenter stated that it is likely that there has 
been a large range contraction for some of the proposed shark species. 
The commenter noted that, based on Barreto et al. (2015) (which has now 
been published as Barreto et al. 2016), several shark species, 
including the daggernose shark, may be close to extinction in Brazilian 
waters. The commenter also cited Willems et al. (2015) as evidence that 
daggernose sharks may have been extirpated from the waters of Guyana as 
well, resulting in a significant combined range contraction. The 
commenter noted that this may be indicative of additional extirpations 
as Guyana does not represent the northernmost extreme of the species' 
range. Citing Willems et al. (2015), the commenter stated that 
daggernose sharks were caught off Guyana in the 1960s but were not 
observed in a 2015 study, indicating that they may no longer be present 
there, or that they have at least been reduced to the point of rarity. 
The commenter asserted that such range contractions are concerning and 
may indicate that additional range contractions have happened in the 
other range countries of the daggernose shark where information is 
lacking.
    Response: Neither of the papers cited by the commenter (Barreto et 
al. 2015 or Willems et al. 2015) provided any new information on the 
distribution or extinction risk of the daggernose shark. Barreto et al. 
(2015) referenced the Instituto Chico Mendes de 
Conserva[ccedil][atilde]o da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) assessment of 
daggernose shark (ICMBio 2014) as support for its statement that the 
species may be close to extirpation in Brazil. This assessment did not 
provide any information regarding evidence of a range contraction for 
the species, nor did it provide new information that was not already 
reviewed, considered, or cited in the proposed rule. The other paper, 
Willems et al. (2015), describes a study where researchers conducted 
monthly trawl sampling of 15 locations off the coast of Suriname from 
February 2012--April 2013 to characterize the demersal fish fauna on 
the inner continental shelf. The authors noted that daggernose sharks 
were not observed in the samples but had previously been caught off 
Guyana in the 1960s, and hypothesized that fishing activity may have 
led to local extirpations, presumably off Suriname (where the study 
took place). There was no data or information in the Willems et al. 
(2015) study to indicate that daggernose sharks are no longer present 
off Guyana.
    We acknowledge that overutilization is the primary threat to the 
daggernose shark, contributing to its present high risk of extinction; 
however, we do not find that the information provided by the commenter 
indicates that the species is also at risk of a significant range 
contraction. Overall, there is a severe lack of information on the 
species' historical and current distribution, with only scarce records 
of the species throughout Suriname, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago. 
However, the species is mobile (as demonstrated by its seasonal 
migrations), and while it is uncertain whether local populations have 
been fished to extirpation, there is no information to indicate that 
the species presently suffers from a curtailment of its range.
Brazilian Guitarfish
    Comment 3: One commenter disagreed with our conclusion that habitat 
destruction or modification is not an operative threat to the Brazilian 
guitarfish, and suggested we consider the impacts of trawling 
activities on Brazilian guitarfish habitat. The commenter pointed out a 
peer reviewer comment on the status review (Casselberry and Carlson 
2015b) that said ``[i]n this document is cited that there is no 
specific information available on how trawling has affected the 
Brazilian guitarfish's habitat. However, knowing that they feed mainly 
on benthic community, we can assume the trawling may affect the food 
chain in which R. horkelii is inserted.'' The commenter asserted that 
the peer reviewer made an important common sense point that applies to 
all species that rely on benthic habitats that are damaged by trawling, 
and that this type of damage to the species' habitat will inevitably 
harm the species. The commenter suggested we consider this damage as an 
additional source of harm to the species, despite the fact that it may 
be difficult to quantify. The commenter then noted that this benthic 
habitat threats discussion applies to all species that are reliant on 
benthic habitats that are, or may be, impacted by trawlers, including 
the striped smoothhound shark, narrownose smoothhound shark, Argentine 
angelshark and spiny angelshark.
    Response: While trawling activities affect the benthic community 
and may potentially affect the food chain for R. horkelii and the other 
elasmobranch benthic feeders, we have no information to indicate that 
this is presently or historically the case, or contributing to the 
extinction risk of any of the species. Additionally, we note that broad 
or general information, or the identification of factors that could 
negatively impact a species, do not indicate that listing is 
necessarily warranted. We look for information indicating that not only 
is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species is 
responding to or reasonably likely to respond to that factor in a 
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that 
negative

[[Page 21725]]

response. While we reviewed and considered the information from the 
status review and information collected prior to the proposed rule on 
habitat destruction or modification as a potential threat, we found no 
information to indicate that this factor is contributing significantly 
to the species' risk of extinction. Additionally, neither the 
information provided by the commenter, nor information in our files, 
indicates that trawling has altered the benthic habitat in such a way 
that it is leading to declines in food resources for the Brazilian 
guitarfish or any of the other species considered in this final rule. 
As such, our conclusion that the information does not indicate that 
habitat destruction or modification is an operative threat on these 
species remains the same.
Narrownose Smoothhound Shark
    Comment 4: One commenter noted that narrownose smoothhounds have 
exhibited elevated levels of mercury and cadmium in their tissue and 
cited to the status review for the species (Casselberry and Carlson 
2015c). The commenter asserted that these trace metals bioaccumulate up 
the food chain from pollutant sources in the species' habitat and can 
cause a variety of harm to higher trophic level species, like the 
narrownose smoothhound, and provided Gelsleichter and Walker (2010) as 
a reference. The commenter concluded that the presence of these 
pollutants in the narrownose smoothhound's habitat, and their resultant 
bioaccumulation and biomagnification in the species, is an additional 
habitat-related threat to the species' continued existence.
    Response: As the status review (Casselberry and Carlson 2015c) 
notes, the study that found elevated levels of mercury and cadmium in 
narrownose smoothhound shark tissues in Argentina (Marcovecchi et al. 
1991) did not provide any information on the impact of these metals on 
the survival of the individual sharks. Additionally, we found no 
information on the impact of toxin and metal bioaccumulation 
specifically in narrownose smoothhound populations. In fact, there is 
no information on the lethal concentration limits of toxins or metals 
in narrownose smoothhound sharks, or evidence to suggest that current 
concentrations of environmental pollutants are causing detrimental 
physiological effects to the point where the species may be at an 
increased risk of extinction. As such, at this time, the best available 
information does not indicate that the present bioaccumulation rates 
and concentrations of environmental pollutants in the tissues of 
narrownose smoothhound sharks are threats significantly contributing to 
the species' risk of extinction throughout its range, now or in the 
foreseeable future.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

General Comments Applicable to Multiple Species
    Comment 5: One commenter provided general information on the threat 
of overfishing of sharks and rays worldwide. Citing an analysis by 
Davidson et al. (2015), the commenter noted that global landings of 
sharks and rays have declined by approximately 20 percent, which the 
authors attribute to population declines rather than fishery management 
measures. The commenter also specifically highlighted the increase in 
landings by Argentina (5-10 percent) and Brazil (1-5 percent) from 2003 
to 2011, and the failure of these countries to meet all of the 
sustainable fishing objectives set out in their respective Food and 
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) National Plans of 
Action for the conservation of sharks (hereafter referred to as FAO 
NPOA-sharks) as evidence that current regulatory mechanisms in these 
range states are inadequate and that overfishing will continue to cause 
the proposed species to decline further.
    Response: We reviewed the Davidson et al. (2015) paper and found 
that while it gives a broad overview of the trend in global shark 
landings, and suggests that overfishing, rather than improved 
management, explains the global declines observed in shark and ray 
landings since 2003, it does not provide any new or substantive 
species-specific information. In assessing threats, we look for 
information indicating that not only is a particular species exposed to 
a factor, but also that the species is responding to or reasonably 
likely to respond to that factor in a negative fashion in order to 
assess the potential significance of that factor to a particular 
species. We previously considered the FAO landings data (upon which the 
Davidson et al. (2015) paper is based) and examined the management and 
adequacy of existing regulatory measure as it relates to each of the 
proposed species' extinction risks (not just sharks and rays, in 
general), with this discussion provided in our proposed rule. 
Additionally, based on new information received since the publication 
of the proposed rule, we have revised this discussion specifically for 
the narrownose smoothhound and spiny angelshark, which can be found 
below in the sections Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and 
Extinction Risk.
Daggernose Shark
    Comment 6: One commenter, referencing Barreto et al. (2015), stated 
that monitoring of fishing in countries, including Brazil, has been 
inconsistent. The commenter provides the following quote from Barreto 
et al. (2015): ``Nowadays, there are 750 longliners with permission to 
catch specifically P. glauca, I. oxyrhinchus and C. falciformis in 
Brazilian waters. For comparison, in our database, over more than 30 
years, about 200 vessels reported data.'' The commenter asserts that 
this information indicates a large increase over historical numbers in 
vessels with permission to catch daggernose sharks.
    Response: The commenter provides a footnote to their statement that 
the reference to I. oxyrhinchus in the Barreto et al. (2015) quote 
could be referring to the daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus) 
or the shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), as the spelling used 
was not consistent with either species' Latin name. However, we 
disagree with the commenter and note that given Barreto et al.'s (2015) 
discussion and use of I. oxyrhinchus throughout their paper as 
referring to the shortfin mako shark, the quote is clearly referencing 
the number of longliners that are permitted to catch blue sharks, 
shortfin mako sharks, and silky sharks in Brazilian waters.
    In the footnote, the commenter additionally provides a Web site 
link to indicate that some Brazilian fishing licenses specifically 
allow for catch of daggernose sharks (http://sinpesq.mpa.gov.br/rgp-publico/web/index.php/frota/detalhe/num_frota/1.02.001); however, we 
were unable to access this Web page to verify the information. We note 
that the species is listed in Annex I of Brazil's endangered species 
list (``Lista de Esp[eacute]cies da Fauna Brasileira Amea[ccedil]adas 
de Extin[ccedil][atilde]o''), which prohibits the capture of the 
species except for scientific purposes, and, therefore, fishing 
licenses allowing the capture of the species for commercial or 
recreational purposes is unlikely. Additionally, as discussed in the 
proposed rule, the species is most susceptible to being caught in the 
artisanal gillnet fisheries, given their depth and distribution. As 
such, the impact of an overall increase in Brazilian longliners does 
not change our conclusion regarding the extinction risk of the species.

[[Page 21726]]

Striped Smoothhound Shark
    Comment 7: Citing the status review for the striped smoothhound 
shark (Casselberry and Carlson 2015d), one commenter noted that striped 
smoothhound shark biomass is concentrated in a very small area of 
coastline in southern Rio Grande do Sul (indicating that this is an 
important nursery area for the species). The commenter asserted that 
the concentration of the species in this highly limited area of 
abundance appears to be due to the population declines that the species 
has already experienced and referenced the decline in neonate 
production between 1981 and 2005 (Casselberry and Carlson 2015d). The 
commenter concluded that this makes the species vulnerable to 
population-level effects from impacts occurring in a relatively limited 
area. The commenter suggested that we consider the extent to which this 
highly concentrated area of abundance elevates the species' extinction 
risk.
    Response: The commenter provided no new information. We considered 
the above information, including the decline in neonate production, 
which is discussed in detail in the Historical and Current Distribution 
and Population Abundance, Demographic Risk Analysis and Risk of 
Extinction sections of the proposed rule, with the findings 
contributing to our assessment of the species as endangered.
Narrownose Smoothhound Shark
    Comment 8: One commenter disagreed with our characterization of 
some information related to overutilization of the narrownose 
smoothhound shark in Uruguay. The commenter asserted that an abundance 
decline of the species is the only plausible explanation for the large 
decline in narrownose smoothhound catch in Uruguay (over 85 percent 
from 1999-2013), particularly since there has not been a decrease in 
fishing effort. The commenter asserted: ``Where a market for the 
species still exists, as it does in neighboring Argentina, fishermen 
will not simply ignore the species'' and that ``Though effort 
information does not exist, the cause of this decline in catch is 
clear--it is caused by a corresponding, and likely very large, decline 
in narrownose smoothhound population numbers in these waters.'' The 
commenter emphasized that speculation on an alternative explanation for 
the decrease in landings of narrownose smoothhound shark in Uruguay is 
unfounded.
    Response: With the exception of the Barreto et al. (2015) study, 
the commenter does not provide any new information to consider, besides 
their opinion, in regards to the cause of the decline in landings of 
the species. Based on a review of the reference provided in the comment 
(i.e., Barreto et al. 2015), we do not agree with the commenter that 
the information provided implies any trend in fishing effort specific 
to narrownose smoothhounds in Uruguay. We also note that updated data 
for narrownose smoothhound reported to the FAO showed an increase in 
Uruguayan reported landings from 194 t in 2013 to 663 t in 2014. 
However, since publication of the proposed rule, we have received new 
data showing trends in landings, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), and 
biomass of the narrownose smoothhound in the Argentine-Uruguayan Common 
Fishing Zone (AUCFZ), and have revised the discussion concerning the 
threats to the species and its current extinction risk. This new 
discussion can be found below in the sections Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk.
    Comment 9: One commenter provided new information regarding the 
post-release survivorship of narrownose smoothhound sharks based on a 
study that evaluated the survivorship of elasmobranchs captured by 
bottom trawlers (Chiaramonte et al. undated). The commenter stated that 
in addition to retention of targeted and bycaught individuals, this new 
study provides evidence that narrownose smoothhounds respond poorly to 
capture and likely face very high post-release mortality when caught by 
bottom trawl gear.
    Response: Based on the information in Chiaramonte et al. (undated), 
we agree with the commenter that M. schmitti likely has poor 
survivorship after being caught by trawl gear. While the post-release 
survival experiment was based on only two individuals (both dead after 
15-30 minutes in a holding tank on the trawl vessel), 55 percent of the 
52 narrownose smoothhounds captured were described as being ``not in 
good condition'' (i.e., either immobile or dead). However, we note that 
only juveniles were assessed in the study and, therefore, the 
survivorship of larger adults in trawl gear remains unknown. In terms 
of the impact on extinction risk, we find that this new information 
does not change our assessment of the species being at a moderate risk 
of extinction. We note that the species is threatened with 
overutilization by commercial and artisanal fisheries, and because it 
is commercially sought after throughout its range, we consider the 
likelihood of the species being discarded (alive or dead) to be very 
low.
    Comment 10: One commenter referenced a study (Fields et al. 2015) 
that assessed species composition from a collection of 72 processed 
shark fins and found that one fin, from a United States shark fin soup 
sample, belonged to the narrownose smoothhound shark. The commenter 
concluded that the findings indicated that not only is the species 
exploited for the shark fin trade, but that it is also the subject of 
international trade, at least some of which implicates the United 
States specifically.
    Response: We reviewed the Fields et al. (2015) study, and while one 
shark fin was genetically identified as M. schmitti, we found no other 
information to suggest that the species is actively being targeted for 
the international shark fin trade. Additionally, the authors of the 
study note that the samples were ``not collected in a systematic or 
random manner and thus do not provide any information on the overall 
species composition of the trade'' in the sampling regions. Although 
fins of M. schmitti may enter international trade, the available data 
do not indicate that this species is a large component of the shark fin 
trade or that this utilization of the shark is significantly 
contributing to the species' extinction risk.
    Comment 11: One commenter cited to the FAO capture production 
statistics referenced in Davidson et al. (2015) as evidence of the 
global exploitation and population decline of the narrownose 
smoothhound, and noted that the species is still heavily fished in 
Uruguay and along the Uruguay/Argentina border. Using Jaureguizar et 
al. (2014) and Ligrone et al. (2014) as support, the commenter asserted 
that the species is still targeted and experiencing heavy fishing 
pressure, particularly during its reproductive period, leading the 
commenter to conclude that the narrownose smoothhound shark fishery is 
highly unsustainable.
    Response: As mentioned in the proposed rule, we also considered the 
landings data reported to the FAO for M. schmitti, noting that landings 
were on a declining trend since the mid-2000s, down to 194 t in 2013; 
however, due to the absence of effort information, we noted that the 
cause of the decline was not entirely clear. For example, from 2002 to 
2010, Mustelus spp. catch limits were imposed in the AUCFZ, and 
starting in 2011, catch limits specifically for narrownose smoothhound 
were established (which could affect landings data). The most recent 
FAO data for 2014 actually show over a 3-fold

[[Page 21727]]

increase in landings for Uruguay from 2013, up to 663 t.
    We reviewed the Jaureguizar et al. (2014) study and found that 
while it provides information on the composition of small-scale gillnet 
fishery catch from two neighboring fishing communities in Argentina, 
and notes the likely landing of M. schmitti during its spring migration 
for reproduction purposes, the study's main objective was to examine 
seasonal fishing effort for different species over the course of a 
single year. We also reviewed the Ligrone et al. (2014) paper, which 
surveyed 21 artisanal fishermen operating from La Paloma and Cabo 
Polonio ports and found that Mustelus spp. represented 40 percent of 
the catch. The sharks were caught during shark fishing, which occurred 
mostly between April and October around the ports of La Paloma and 12 
nautical miles (nmi) from Cabo Polonio port. While these studies 
confirm that fishing for narrownose smoothhound sharks occurs, the 
information from these studies does not provide an indication of the 
present status of the shark, which could indicate the sustainability of 
these artisanal fishing operations.
    However, we agree with the commenter that overutilization of 
narrownose smoothhound is a threat to the species, and we stated this 
in the proposed rule: ``The primary threat to the narrownose 
smoothhound is overutilization in commercial and artisanal fisheries as 
the species is intensely fished throughout its entire range, including 
within its nursery grounds.'' We considered the available fisheries 
data as well as the trends in the species' demographic factors to make 
our extinction risk determination and do not find that the information 
provided by the commenter changes our conclusion. We note that since 
publication of the proposed rule, we have also received new data 
showing trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass of the narrownose 
smoothhound in the AUCFZ, and have revised the discussion concerning 
the threats to the species and its current extinction risk. This new 
discussion can be found below in the sections Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk.
    Comment 12: One commenter provided another possible explanation for 
the decline in M. schmitti catches in the AUCFZ since 2010 (besides 
reduced fishing pressure and adherence to catch regulations), 
suggesting that the total allowable catch quotas were set too high and, 
therefore, do not actually restrict catch in any meaningful way. The 
commenter stated that inadequate quotas, compounded by pervasive 
inadequate enforcement, render the regulatory measures wholly 
inadequate to conserve the species.
    Response: The commenters provided no new information that was not 
already considered in the proposed rule. However, since publication of 
the proposed rule, we have received new data showing trends in 
landings, CPUE, and biomass of the narrownose smoothhound in the AUCFZ, 
and have revised the discussion concerning the threats to the species 
and its current extinction risk. This new discussion can be found below 
in the sections Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and 
Extinction Risk.
Spiny Angelshark
    Comment 13: One commenter suggested that we should consider whether 
the survey data for S. guggenheim is recent enough that it still 
accurately accounts for the species' abundance at present, and whether 
impacts suffered since the conclusion of the survey are taken into 
account. The commenter cited Jaureguizar et al. (2014) to show that the 
highest CPUE of S. guggenheim occurs during its reproductive period and 
claimed that this unsustainable practice will increase overutilization 
pressure on the species and cause very fast declines, even where the 
species may be relatively numerous.
    Response: The commenter did not provide any recent survey data for 
S. guggenheim for us to consider. We reviewed the Jaureguizar et al. 
(2014) study and while it provides information on the composition of 
small-scale gillnet fishery catch from two neighboring fishing 
communities at the southern boundary of the R[iacute]o de la Plata, we 
do not find that it makes any generalizations as to the CPUE of the 
species throughout its range. Rather, it notes that in relation to the 
other seasonal catch in these fishing communities, S. guggenheim has 
the highest CPUE during the autumn, when the species moves into 
nearshore waters for reproductive purposes.
    We also note that since publication of the proposed rule, we have 
received new data showing trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass of the 
spiny angelshark within the AUCFZ that leads us to conclude that the 
species is at a higher risk of extinction than what was stated in the 
proposed rule. We have subsequently revised the discussion concerning 
threats to the species and its current extinction risk. This new 
discussion can be found below in the sections Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk.
    Comment 14: One commenter, citing Ligrone et al. (2014), noted that 
the Uruguayan artisanal fleet, which in 2007 recorded a total of 726 
vessels for R[iacute]o de la Plata Estuary and the Atlantic coast, 
operates on a multispecies basis, with angelsharks (Squatina spp.) 
being one of the main species caught, representing 11 percent of the 
catch. Additionally, the commenter, quoting Ligrone et al. (2014), 
stated that the impacts of these Uruguayan artisanal fisheries on the 
species may be exacerbated as they ``share their main targeted species 
sequentially, and often spatially'' with the industrial fisheries.
    Response: We reviewed the Ligrone et al. (2014) paper and note that 
the authors are not describing the practices of the 726 vessels 
mentioned above, but rather are specifically describing the artisanal 
fisheries operating off the Uruguayan Atlantic coast. According to the 
authors, 82 artisanal fishing vessels are registered and fish on a 
multi-species basis, operating between the coast and 15 nmi offshore. 
While Squatina spp. represented 11 percent of the catch, the authors do 
not provide actual catch numbers or trends in effort over multiple 
years that may provide additional information as to the status of the 
species. In the proposed rule, we considered the impact of both 
industrial and artisanal fisheries on spiny angelsharks, noting that 
these fisheries primarily operate in depths that ``cover the entire 
depth range of the spiny angelshark'' (80 FR 76095) and, therefore, 
fish all life stages of the species (80 FR 76099).
    However, as noted previously, since publication of the proposed 
rule, we have received new data showing trends in landings, CPUE, and 
biomass of the spiny angelshark within the AUCFZ that leads us to 
conclude that the species is at a higher risk of extinction than what 
was stated in the proposed rule. We have subsequently revised the 
discussion concerning threats to the species and its current extinction 
risk. This new discussion can be found below in the sections Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk.

Disease or Predation

Narrownose Smoothhound Shark
    Comment 15: One commenter disagreed with our conclusion that 
neither disease nor predation were operative threats on the species, 
and argued that this determination is inconsistent with the information 
presented in the status review. The commenter pointed to information in 
the status review (Casselberry and

[[Page 21728]]

Carlson 2015c) describing a survey off the coast of Brazil that found 
four individuals (4.21 percent of the surveyed population) with 
Hifalomicose (a fungal infection that causes muscle necrosis with 
hyphal penetration into the cartilage). The commenter quoted from the 
status review: ``All infected individuals displayed necrosis on their 
snout and an additional infection from the yeast, Fusarium solani. The 
ulcers from the necrosis turn greenish and result in major bleeding, 
which leads to death. This infection can cause widespread infestations 
because the fungus is easily transmitted and has a fast life cycle.'' 
The commenter argued that this information indicates disease as a 
fairly serious threat to the species, and urged us to assess this 
threat when making our final listing determination for the species.
    Response: We acknowledge that the information in the status review 
confirms some incidence of fungal infection in the narrownose 
smoothhound; however, the information in the status review is based on 
a single study with data that is over 20 years old. Additionally, the 
commenter did not provide any new information regarding how fungal 
infections are having ongoing negative population-level effects on the 
species. Therefore, without any new information provided by the 
commenter, we maintain our previous conclusion in the proposed rule 
that disease is not likely a significant contributing factor to the 
species' extinction risk.
    Comment 16: One commenter disagreed with our determination that 
predation is not an operative threat to the narrownose smoothhound, and 
argued that our determination is inconsistent with information 
presented in the status review for the species. The commenter pointed 
to the status review (Casselberry and Carlson 2015c), which determined 
that narrownose smoothhounds are an important prey item for large 
sharks, including the broadnose sevengill shark (Notorynchus 
cepedianus), the copper shark (Carcharhinus brachyurus), and the sand 
tiger shark (Carcharias taurus). The commenter contends that although 
predation by a native predator would typically not cause the extinction 
of a prey species under natural conditions, M. schmitti populations are 
already depleted and are subject to additional threats. As a result, 
any additional mortality will exacerbate the threats that they are 
already subjected to. The commenter concluded that predation by other 
shark species is causing cumulative and synergistic impacts to 
narrownose smoothhounds that are exacerbating the other threats that 
they are facing.
    Response: We acknowledge that the information from the status 
review confirms that narrownose smoothhounds are a prey item of various 
shark species, and we considered this information in the proposed rule; 
however, the commenter provided no new information regarding predation 
rates of M. schmitti or how predation is having negative population-
level effects on the species. Thus, the statement from the commenter 
that predation is causing cumulative and synergistic impacts to the 
species is speculative. Without any new information provided by the 
commenter, we maintain our previous conclusion in the proposed rule 
that predation is not likely a significant contributing factor to the 
species' extinction risk throughout its range.
Spiny Angelshark
    Comment 17: The same commenter from Comment 16 also disagreed with 
our determination that predation is not an operative threat to the 
spiny angelshark, and argued that our determination is inconsistent 
with information presented in the status review for the species. The 
commenter pointed to the status review (Casselberry and Carlson 2015e), 
which determined that small spiny angelsharks are infrequently 
cannibalized by large male spiny angelsharks and eaten by sand tiger 
sharks, copper sharks, and broadnose sevengill sharks. The commenter 
contends that although predation by a native predator would typically 
not cause the extinction of a prey species under natural conditions, 
spiny angelshark populations are already depleted and are subject to 
additional threats. As a result, any additional mortality will 
exacerbate the threats that they are already subjected to. The 
commenter concluded that predation by other shark species is causing 
cumulative and synergistic impacts to spiny angelsharks that are 
exacerbating the other threats that they are facing.
    Response: We acknowledge that the information from the status 
review confirms that spiny angelsharks are a prey item of various shark 
species, and we considered this information in the proposed rule; 
however, the commenter provided no new information regarding predation 
rates of spiny angelsharks or how predation is having negative 
population-level effects on the species. Thus, the statement from the 
commenter that predation is causing cumulative and synergistic impacts 
to the species is speculative. The status review notes that predation 
of spiny angelsharks by tiger and broadnose sevengill sharks has only 
been documented in ``low frequencies,'' suggesting that spiny 
angelsharks may not be a preferred prey item of these species. Without 
any new information provided by the commenter, we maintain our previous 
conclusion in the proposed rule that predation is not likely a 
significant contributing factor to the species' extinction risk 
throughout its range.
Argentine Angelshark
    Comment 18: Similar to Comments 16 and 17 above, the same commenter 
also disagreed with our determination that predation is not an 
operative threat to the Argentine angelshark, and argued that our 
determination is inconsistent with information presented in the status 
review for the species. The commenter pointed to the status review 
(Casselberry and Carlson 2015f), which said: ``studies of South 
American sea lion (Otaria flavescens) diet in Uruguay found that they 
consume Argentine angelsharks, particularly in Cabo Polonio.'' The 
commenter contends that although predation by a native predator would 
typically not cause the extinction of a prey species under natural 
conditions, Argentine angelshark populations are already depleted and 
subjected to additional threats. As a result, any additional mortality 
will exacerbate the threats that they are already subjected to. The 
commenter concluded that predation by this sea lion species is causing 
cumulative and synergistic impacts to Argentine angelsharks that are 
exacerbating the other threats that they are facing.
    Response: We acknowledge that the information from the status 
review confirms that Argentine angelsharks are a prey item of the South 
American sea lion, and we considered this information in the proposed 
rule; however, the commenter provided no new information regarding 
predation rates of Argentine angelsharks elsewhere throughout its range 
or how predation is having negative population-level effects on the 
species. Thus, the statement from the commenter that predation by South 
American sea lions is causing cumulative and synergistic impacts to the 
species is speculative. Therefore, based on only one study from the 
status review (Szteren 2006), which found predation of Argentine 
angelsharks in only one of four study areas in Uruguay (Cabo Polonio), 
we maintain our previous conclusion in the proposed rule that predation 
is not likely a significant contributing factor to the species' 
extinction risk throughout its range.

[[Page 21729]]

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

General Comments Applicable to Multiple Species
    Comment 19: One commenter asserted that the references to 
Argentina's FAO NPOA-sharks was only mentioned tangentially and 
incompletely. The commenter asserts that the results of the plan are 
published and communicated to the relevant multilateral FAO forums who 
are satisfied with the achievements thus far. In terms of monitoring 
and implementation of the FAO NPOA-sharks, the commenter noted that the 
Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which monitors and reviews the plan, 
filed a proposed update, which was approved by the Federal Fisheries 
Council, the body responsible for the establishment of the national 
fisheries policy in Argentina.
    Response: We have reviewed the most recent documents related to 
Argentina's FAO NPOA-sharks mentioned by the commenter. The update to 
the FAO NPOA-sharks was approved in 2015 (ACTA CF No. 42/2015) and 
specifically revised the objectives and actions set forth in Chapter IV 
of the 2009 plan. We also reviewed the proceedings from the TAG 
workshop held to review and update the FAO NPOA-sharks (TAG 2015), and 
while it provided progress on the actions and goals outlined in 
Argentina's FAO NPOA-sharks, it did not provide any information 
specific to informing the status of any of the proposed species, or 
evidence of the adequacy of these actions in protecting these species. 
In one section of the report, it documents the number of M. schmitti 
and angelshark individuals found at two ports during sampling by El 
Instituto Nacional de Investigaci[oacute]n y Desarrollo Pesquero 
(INIDEP) from 2013-2015; however, without additional information on 
sampling design or methods, we have no way of interpreting the results. 
Based on the proposed goals and actions, and progress towards these 
goals, it is clear that gaps in knowledge about many of the 
chondrichthyan species in Argentine waters exist, but that these gaps 
will hopefully be filled in the foreseeable future. However, at this 
time, this information does not change our conclusions regarding the 
status of any of the proposed species. In fact, the workshop report 
notes that one of the actions in the FAO NPOA-sharks is to establish 
criteria to categorize the conservation status of the different species 
of chondrichthyans in the Argentine Sea, with the first application of 
this to the priority species listed in the FAO NPOA-sharks, including 
Squatina spp. and M. schmitti. However, it was noted that no progress 
has been made on this action, but that a plan to figure out the 
allocation of funds for this action was suggested in 2016.
    Comment 20: One commenter provided a list of research surveys from 
which the results were used to evaluate the closure areas that have 
been established for M. schmitti and S. guggenheim in waters of 
Argentina and the AUCFZ. Additionally, the commenter provided a list of 
Argentina's regulations pertinent to fisheries operating in the ``El 
Rinc[oacute]n'' area as well as regulations pertaining to recreational 
fishermen.
    Response: In terms of the list of research surveys, we were not 
provided the actual data or results from these surveys (only the year 
of the survey, type, area of operation, season, month, and number of 
sets were provided) and, thus, we could not evaluate the relevance of 
these surveys to informing our determination of the status of either 
the narrownose smoothhound or spiny angelshark. While we acknowledge 
that Argentina is actively working on the implementation of its FAO 
NPOA-sharks, and currently regulates its fisheries through a number of 
management measures, including closure areas to protect 
chondrichthyans, the adequacy of these measures in controlling the 
threat of overutilization to the proposed species is still uncertain. 
It is not clear, from the information provided by the commenter, if 
these regulations have improved the status of any of the proposed 
species. Based on the best available information for the species found 
in Argentinean waters, including population data, demographic risks, 
and current exploitation rates, it appears that they face either 
moderate or high risks of extinction. Further discussion of the data 
informing this extinction risk analysis can be found in the proposed 
rule as well as the Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and 
Extinction Risk sections of this final determination.
    Comment 21: One commenter stated that total permitted catches in 
Argentine waters and the AUCFZ are set both nationally and within the 
framework of the Comisi[oacute]n T[eacute]cnica Mixta del Frente 
Mar[iacute]timo (CTMFM), respectively. The commenter further noted that 
catch limits are based on the advice from the TAG, which uses 
information from research surveys and fishery statistics to develop 
stock assessment models and propose management options using a 
precautionary approach. The commenter references a list of research 
surveys conducted since 2006 that they assert was not considered in the 
proposed rule.
    Response: We note that the TAG considers the available data, 
including the referenced research surveys, when it develops stock 
assessment models and provides advice to the CTMFM. At the time of the 
proposed rule, we did not have access to the latest documents from the 
TAG or CTMFM (or the results from the referenced research surveys). 
However, since publication of the proposed rule, we have received new 
data from the CTMFM, including recent TAG reports and stock assessment 
models that show trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass of the 
narrownose smoothhound and spiny angelshark in the AUCFZ, and have 
revised the discussion concerning the threats to these species and 
their current extinction risk. This new discussion can be found below 
in the sections Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and 
Extinction Risk.
    Comment 22: One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not 
consider the CTMFM Resolution No. 10/2000, which prohibits vessels over 
28 meters (m) in length from operating in the coastal area to the 
isobath 50 m deep within the AUCFZ. The commenter asserted that this 
resolution has had a positive impact on reducing fishing effort for the 
proposed species in the AUCFZ.
    Response: While we agree that this prohibition has likely reduced 
fishing effort on the species within the AUCFZ somewhat, the extent of 
the reduction largely depends on the species. For example, this 
prohibition would have no effect on fishing effort for S. argentina, 
whose depth ranges from 100 m to 400 m. For S. guggenheim, Hozbor and 
P[eacute]rez (2016) note that the fleet comprised of boats 18-25 m in 
length, which would not fall under this prohibition, mostly operate in 
the depth stratum where S. guggenheim would occur, and were responsible 
for over 50 percent of the landings of the species from 2000-2015. The 
narrownose smoothhound shark, M. schmitti, is found in up to 120 m 
depths in Argentina, and, therefore, may still be subject to fishery-
related mortality by these larger vessels. Based on new information 
received since publication of the proposed rule on the trends in 
landings, CPUE, and biomass of narrownose smoothhounds and spiny 
angelsharks in the AUCFZ, and the adequacy of existing regulatory 
measures, we have since re-evaluated the extinction risk of both 
species (see sections Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and 
Extinction Risk).

[[Page 21730]]

Based on the results, we do not find that the above prohibition has 
likely reduced mortality on either of these species to the point where 
they would not warrant listing under the ESA.
    Comment 23: One commenter noted that the Argentine industrial fleet 
operates satellite monitoring systems that report the position of each 
vessel every hour. The commenter elaborated that the global positioning 
information of the fleet is published on the Web site of the Ministry 
and is updated every 12 hours, demonstrating absolute transparency and 
also the effective control of closed areas. Additionally, the commenter 
notes that this information is integrated in a way that allows the 
issuance of legal catch documents, which are requested by exporters to 
be presented to customs authorities.
    Response: While we thank the commenter for this information, we do 
not find that it changes our conclusions regarding the threats to the 
proposed species, or their respective overall risks of extinction.
    Comment 24: One commenter, citing Bornatowski et al. (2014), 
Barreto et al. (2015), Amaral and Jablonski (2005), and Ricardo-Pezzuto 
and Mastella-Beninca (2015), asserted Brazilian regulatory measures are 
inadequate to protect any of the proposed species. Specifically, the 
commenter states that monitoring of both commercial and artisanal 
fisheries in Brazilian waters is insufficient due to a lack of 
monitoring capacity and data. Furthermore, the commenter asserted that 
instead of making serious efforts to improve protections for sharks and 
decrease overfishing, Brazil has taken several actions that will have 
the opposite effects, including ending its observer program and 
creating favorable conditions to allow fishing fleets to expand in the 
area. The commenter claims that protected areas are insufficient in 
number and extent, and that management plans have not been implemented 
or are lacking altogether for some of these areas, with attempts at 
shark protections met with strong opposition from the fishing industry. 
Additionally, the commenter mentioned that trawling licenses in Brazil 
allow their holders to catch and retain dozens of species, both target 
and non-target, with the fleets authorized to catch many species that 
are not in their licenses. Citing the narrownose smoothhound status 
review (Casselberry and Carlson 2015c), the commenter noted that at 
least one population of narrownose smoothhounds may have been 
extirpated in Brazil as a result of overfishing and concluded that 
overfishing in this country has the ability to extirpate other 
populations as well.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that overutilization and 
inadequate existing regulatory measures are threats to the proposed 
species within Brazilian waters. These threats have been thoroughly 
considered and discussed in the proposed rule and have led to our 
listing determinations. We reviewed the papers mentioned by the 
commenter and find that these papers do not present new information 
specific to any of the proposed species that was not already considered 
or would change our prior conclusions regarding threats to these 
species.
    Comment 25: One commenter agreed with our evaluation of the 
adequacy of existing regulatory measures in Uruguay. The commenter, 
citing Barreto et al. (2015), stated that there is a general scarcity 
of fishing statistics from Uruguay and that the lack of information and 
effective regulation in the face of exploitation has caused 
elasmobranchs to decline in Uruguayan waters. The commenter asserted 
that protections for the proposed species in Uruguay are likely to be 
inadequate until conservation is prioritized as a political matter and 
the protections in Uruguay's FAO NPOA-sharks are strengthened. The 
commenter concluded that all of the proposed shark species that are 
present in Uruguayan waters are thus threatened by inadequate 
regulatory measures.
    Response: We thank the commenter for the comment and note that a 
thorough discussion and analysis of the adequacy of existing regulatory 
measures in Uruguay and the other portions of the proposed species' 
ranges can be found in the proposed rule as well as in the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk sections of this 
final rule.
    Comment 26: The same commenter from Comment 25 agreed with our 
evaluation of the inadequacy of Argentina's existing regulatory 
measures, asserting that Argentina's catch records are inaccurate and 
that any regulatory mechanisms based on those figures are therefore 
unreliable. The commenter cited a study done by Villasante et al. 
(2015), which reconstructed total marine fisheries removals in 
Argentina's Exclusive Economic Zone from 1950-2010 to provide estimates 
of unreported components of fisheries catch in various sectors. 
Villasante et al. (2015) found that reconstructed catch was 55 percent 
higher than FAO reported landings. The commenter asserted protections 
for the proposed species in Argentina are likely to be inadequate until 
conservation is prioritized as a political matter and the protections 
in Argentina's FAO NPOA-sharks are strengthened.
    Response: We thank the commenter for the comment and note that a 
thorough discussion and analysis of the adequacy of existing regulatory 
measures in Argentina and the other portions of the proposed species' 
range can be found in the proposed rule as well as in the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk sections of this 
final rule.
    Comment 27: One commenter disagreed with the statement from the 
proposed rule (80 FR 76091; December 7, 2015) that cited McCormack et 
al. (2007) as evidence that total allowable catch limits, minimum 
sizes, and annual quotas for elasmobranchs are largely ignored and 
poorly enforced in Argentina. The commenter stated that in Argentina, 
there has been progress in the last 15 years in the study of these 
species, in optimizing data collection, and in personnel training to 
conduct research, but also for the control and monitoring of landings 
and adherence to management measures. The commenter stated these 
efforts have increased since the implementation of Argentina's FAO 
NPOA-sharks in 2009. The commenter also noted that total allowable 
catches (TACs) in Argentina are not theoretical but established by the 
authorities on the basis of the best scientific advice and are 
monitored and enforced by authorities of Argentina and the CTMFM.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter that efforts to 
conserve sharks have increased in Argentina since 2009, and find that 
the information provided by the commenter suggest current management 
measures are enforced by authorities of Argentina and the CTMFM, we 
note that the existing regulatory measures, including TACs, may not be 
adequate to prevent further declines in the the proposed species. Based 
on new information received since publication of the proposed rule, 
including data showing trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass of 
narrownose smoothhounds and spiny angelsharks in the AUCFZ, as well as 
information regarding TACs for these species and the adequacy of 
existing regulatory measures, we have since re-evaluated the extinction 
risk of both species. This discussion can be found in the sections 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk below.
    Comment 28: One commenter asserted that another major regulation 
that was not considered in the proposed rule was the implementation of 
a

[[Page 21731]]

maximum allowance of landed chondrichthyes per fishing trip in 
Argentina. The commenter noted that presently, the CTMFM (Resolution 
09/2013) and the Federal Fisheries Council of Argentina have 
implemented regulations that state that landings of rays and sharks may 
not be more than 30 percent of the total landings per trip. The 
landings of chondrichthyes may not be more than 50 percent of the total 
landings per trip. The commenter referenced a paper by Monsalvo et al. 
(2016) to indicate an adherence to this regulation by the Argentine 
fleet and asserted that the implementation of the management action, 
together with other chondrichthyan-specific regulations (including bans 
and TACs), have reduced fishing pressure on M. schmitti and S. 
guggenheim. The commenter concluded that it is wrong to assume that the 
decline in catches of these two species unfailingly indicates a 
decrease in abundance, but rather is due to the implementation of 
stringent management measures that were established with the explicit 
aim of reducing catches through reduction of effort directed on these 
species.
    Response: As mentioned previously, based on new data we received 
since publication of the proposed rule that shows trends in landings, 
CPUE, and biomass of the narrownose smoothhound and spiny angelshark in 
the AUCFZ, we have re-evaluated our extinction risk analyses for these 
two species. We note that the models upon which the new information is 
based took into account the impacts of management measures, including 
Resolution 09/2013, in estimating biomass and abundance trends (see 
Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016a and 2016b). Based on this new information, 
we agree with the commenter that management measures may have slowed 
the decline in the abundance of these two species (by reducing fishing 
effort and restricting catches); however, we find that existing 
regulatory measures are not adequate to prevent further declines in the 
species. We direct the commenter to our discussion of threats and 
evaluation of the extinction risk of these two species in the sections 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and Extinction Risk below.
    Comment 29: One commenter noted that we did not identify Squatina 
spp. as one of the priority species in Argentina's FAO NPOA-sharks.
    Response: We thank the commenter for this information and 
acknowledge that Argentina's FAO NPOA-sharks does include Squatina spp. 
in the list of priority species that are commercially exploited in 
Argentine waters.
    Comment 30: One commenter asserted that Argentinean and Uruguayan 
fishing authorities are not serious about protecting angelsharks. The 
commenter pointed to the practice of setting catch limits by the CTMFM. 
Specifically, the commenter noted that the CTMFM set a catch limit of 
2,600 tons in 2012 for Squatina spp. within the AUCFZ. This catch limit 
was met, and in response to this, an additional reserve of 400 tons was 
proposed in 2013 in the event that the 2,600-ton limit was reached 
again. The commenter noted that this was followed by a 10 percent 
increase that could be added to the 2,600-ton limit if the limit was 
reached in 2014 and 2015. The commenter asserted that this malleability 
of the catch limit begs the question of why have a limit at all if the 
government's response is to raise the limit once it is reached.
    Response: We note that the commenter provides only opinion 
regarding the effectiveness of the CTMFM catch limits on the status of 
the species. Since publication of the proposed rule, we have received 
new information on the adequacy and effectiveness of the CTMFM imposed 
catch limits for M. schmitti and S. guggenheim and have re-evaluated 
the extinction risks of these two species. This discussion can be found 
in the sections Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and 
Extinction Risk below.
Narrownose Smoothhound Shark
    Comment 31: One commenter mentioned a tagging mark-recapture 
program for narrownose smoothound sharks, which was carried out jointly 
with artisanal fishermen in the southern region of the Province of 
Buenos Aires. The commenter notes that the results of this activity are 
presented in P[eacute]rez et al. (2014).
    Response: While we find that tagging work will be useful in 
contributing valuable data for M. schmitti within Argentine waters, the 
paper referenced only provides results from a preliminary study that 
analyzed the problems currently associated with mark-recapture studies 
in Argentina, which the authors of the study state is a country with 
practically no experience in this technique. The paper discusses the 
outreach involved in the reporting process and issues with the lack of 
precision in recapture positions. However, after reviewing the paper, 
we do not find that the information provided changes any of our 
conclusions regarding the status of the narrownose smoothhound.
    Comment 32: One commenter stated that we did not include the ``best 
available information'' in relation to the status of M. schmitti. The 
commenter recommended that we check the CTMFM Web site for recent 
information, including stock assessments and regulatory measures, 
related to the status of this species.
    Response: Prior to publication of the proposed rule, we considered 
the publicly available information from the CTMFM Web site when we 
evaluated the status of M. schmitti. We have since been in 
correspondence with the CTMFM and received new data showing trends in 
landings, CPUE, and biomass of the narrownose smoothhound and have 
revised the discussion concerning the threats to this species and its 
current extinction risk. This new discussion can be found below in the 
sections Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and Extinction 
Risk.
Striped Smoothhound
    Comment 33: One commenter, citing Tinidade-Santos and Freire 
(2015), stated that Brazilian fisheries managers rely, in part, on 
minimum landing sizes based on fishes' sizes at first maturity for 
managing fisheries, and that minimum landing size is the only fishery 
control used for 48 species in Brazil. The commenter quoted a section 
from Tinidade-Santos and Freire (2015), which noted that the current 
minimum landing size for M. fasciatus in Brazil would not allow it to 
reproduce at least once in its lifetime. The commenter states that 
removing individuals before they have reproduced risks imminent 
population collapse and that Brazil's failure to adequately limit catch 
of immature individuals is another threat to the elasmobranchs in its 
waters.
    Response: We agree that fishing for M. fasciatus before it has 
reached maturity has serious implications for its long-term survival. 
In the proposed rule, we note that the constant fishing pressure on M. 
fasciatus in Brazil's coastal commercial and artisanal fisheries 
affects the recruitment of juvenile sharks into the population and has 
contributed to significant declines in neonate and juvenile 
populations. We specifically state, ``Thus, the intense fishing effort 
by the commercial and artisanal fisheries on the Plataforma Sul appear 
to be negatively affecting the reproductive capacity and growth of the 
population throughout its range,'' with this information contributing 
to our determination to list the species as endangered throughout its 
range. As the commenter provides no additional information on any of 
the other proposed species, our conclusions

[[Page 21732]]

regarding threats to these species in Brazilian waters remain the same.
Spiny Angelshark
    Comment 34: One commenter highlighted the statement in the proposed 
rule regarding the declining catch of S. guggenheim in Santa Catarina, 
Brazil: ``in 2004, landings of S. guggenheim along with S. occulta were 
prohibited and, as such, the decline in landings data after 2004 may be 
a reflection of this prohibition'' (80 FR 76098; December 7, 2015). The 
commenter asserted that the decline in catch is more likely indicative 
of further population decline or decreased reporting as fisheries 
regulations are commonly ignored in Brazil and the observed large 
declines are not consistent with even negligible compliance with 
fisheries regulations.
    Response: The commenter does not provide any new information to 
consider, besides their opinion, in regards to the cause of the decline 
in landings of the species. We note in the proposed rule that the best 
available information indicates S. guggenheim has undergone substantial 
population declines in Brazilian waters, ``with evidence of negative 
population growth rates that led to significant decreases in the 
overall abundance of the species to the point where catch rates and 
observations of spiny angelsharks are extremely low'' (80 FR 76098). We 
also concluded that the fishing effort (both by trawl and gillnet 
fleets) is high and poorly regulated, with the present level of fishing 
effort by the artisanal and industrial fisheries on Brazil's 
continental shelf likely to lead to further declines in the spiny 
angelshark population. A comprehensive discussion of the threats to S. 
guggenheim within Brazilian waters may be found in the proposed rule.
    Comment 35: One commenter advised us to not place much weight on 
the protective ability of seasonal fishing bans in Uruguay that are 
designed to protect other species, but that may also provide some 
protection to the spiny angelshark based on overlap with the species' 
habitat. The commenter asserted that these regulations do not cover the 
entire habitat of the species and could be amended at any time 
irrespective of the status of the spiny angelshark, as they are based 
on protecting other species.
    Response: While the commenter is correct that the seasonal bans do 
not cover the entire spiny angelshark habitat, the commenter provided 
only opinion and speculation regarding the effectiveness or adequacy of 
these seasonal fishing bans in Uruguay in relation to protections for 
the spiny angelshark. Since publication of the proposed rule, we have 
received new information on the adequacy of existing regulatory 
measures to protect S. guggenheim from threats and have re-evaluated 
the extinction risk of this species. This discussion can be found in 
the sections Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species and 
Extinction Risk below.
Argentine Angelshark
    Comment 36: The same commenter from Comment 32 above also stated 
that we did not include the ``best available information'' in relation 
to the status of S. argentina and recommended the CTMFM Web site for 
more information.
    Response: Prior to publication of the proposed rule, we considered 
the publicly available information from the CTMFM Web site when we 
evaluated the status of S. argentina. Since the publication of the 
proposed rule, we have not received any new information regarding the 
status of this species, or found any newly available information on the 
CTMFM Web site, nor does the commenter provide any new data to 
consider. As such, we maintain our previous conclusion in the proposed 
rule that the Argentine angelshark is presently at a high risk of 
extinction throughout all of its range.

Comments on Demographic Risks to the Species

Brazilian Guitarfish
    Comment 37: One commenter asserted that a study by De-Franco et al. 
(2012) appears to have additional Brazilian guitarfish decline data 
that we did not consider in our proposed rule, and suggested that we 
should consider this information in our final listing decision for the 
species.
    Response: We reviewed and considered the De-Franco et al. (2012) 
study in our proposed listing determination for the Brazilian 
guitarfish. In fact, we cited this study to support our conclusion that 
regulatory mechanisms are likely inadequate for the species in Brazil, 
which, in turn, supported our proposal to list the species as 
endangered. Upon re-reviewing De-Franco et al. (2012), we note that 
Miranda and Vooren (2003) is cited as evidence that R. horkelii 
populations declined by approximately 85 percent in the state of Rio 
Grande do Sul between 1985 and 1997. Our proposed rule discussed this 
information in detail in the Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes section where we 
stated that ``Based on the CPUE trends, abundance of R. horkelli on the 
Plataforma Sul in depths of 20 m-200 m is estimated to have decreased 
by about 85 percent between 1975 and 1999 (Vooren et al. 2005a)'' (80 
FR 76077; December 7, 2015). Therefore, we disagree with the commenter 
that we did not consider the Brazilian guitarfish decline data provided 
in De-Franco et al. (2012), as that information was covered in detail 
in the proposed rule and contributed to our proposed endangered listing 
determination for the Brazilian guitarfish.
Narrownose Smoothhound
    Comment 38: One commenter stated that our analysis of productivity 
as a demographic threat to the narrownose smoothhound is flawed. The 
commenter noted that although we determined that the narrownose 
smoothhound has a ``relatively high intrinsic rate of increase,'' the 
commenter asserted that the species still has a low rate of increase 
that will make it more susceptible to decline and less able to recover 
from overexploitation than an r-selected species. The commenter 
believes that this information should elevate the threat that 
overfishing poses to the species.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter that the narrownose 
smoothhound ultimately has a low intrinsic rate of increase compared to 
``r-selected'' species, we still maintain that there is a gradient of 
productivity levels among shark species that help determine the level 
of exploitation that can be sustainable. As described in the proposed 
rule, M. schmitti is able to withstand higher levels of exploitation 
than other shark species, with sustainable exploitation rates 
equivalent to an annual removal rate of about 10 percent of the 
population (Cort[eacute]s 2007). With no new information provided by 
the commenter, we find that there is no evidence that the species' 
productivity is leading to depensatory processes that would elevate its 
extinction risk; therefore, while low productivity inherently increases 
its risk, we have no evidence to suggest that it is currently placing 
the species in danger of extinction.
Spiny Angelshark
    Comment 39: One commenter suggested that we should consider the 
extent to which the spiny angelshark populations are genetically 
isolated, and the extent to which this increases their extinction risk 
by reducing redundancy and reducing the ability of the species to 
decrease the effects of removals through migration.

[[Page 21733]]

    Response: The commenter provides no new information on the genetics 
or population structure of the species. As mentioned in the proposed 
rule, we considered the demographic factors of abundance, growth rate 
and productivity, spatial structure and connectivity, and diversity, 
which reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology 
and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of 
extinction risk. We note that the species faces significant demographic 
risks, including extremely low fecundity, declining population growth 
rate, and limited connectivity. As the commenter did not provide any 
new genetic or population structure data to consider in our demographic 
analysis, our discussion regarding the species' demographic risks 
specifically from spatial structure and connectivity and diversity 
remains the same. However, we have since revised our extinction risk 
analysis for the species based on new information received since the 
publication of the proposed rule, and this discussion can be found in 
the section Extinction Risk below.
Argentine Angelshark
    Comment 40: One commenter asserted that the relative rarity of the 
Argentine angelshark represents an additional threat to the species as 
it ``. . . may not have the redundancy necessary to mediate against 
overutilization.'' The commenter then cited to the proposed rule and 
stated: ``This is exacerbated by the fact that the species appears 
unable to move between populations, indicating that reductions will 
likely not be mediated by migrating individuals and that extirpations 
are therefore more likely.''
    Response: We considered the relative rarity of the Argentine 
angelshark as well as its spatial structure and connectivity in the 
Demographic Risk Analysis--Abundance and Spatial Structure/Connectivity 
sections of the proposed rule. These factors were also discussed and 
considered in the Risk of Extinction section of the proposed rule and 
contributed to the proposed endangered listing for the Argentine 
angelshark. As stated in the proposed rule, we note that given the 
species' restricted range and present rarity throughout its range, 
combined with its limited movement and dispersal between populations 
and low reproductive output, S. argentina is likely strongly influenced 
by stochastic or depensatory processes. This vulnerability is further 
exacerbated by the present threats of overutilization and inadequacy of 
existing regulatory measures that are and will continue to 
significantly contribute to the decline of the existing populations 
(based on the species' demographic risks), compromising the species' 
long-term viability. Therefore, without any new information from the 
commenter, we disagree that the species' relative rarity should be re-
evaluated as a separate threat to the species, as it was already 
thoroughly evaluated in the proposed rule.

Comments Outside of the Scope of the Proposed Rule

    Comment 41: One commenter noted that the proposed species have not 
been included in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) appendices, and, as such, 
efforts should be made in this multilateral forum before listing under 
the ESA. In this regard, the commenter noted that the United States 
should consider the impacts of the proposal on developing countries, 
including any restrictions on commercial exports, and consult with the 
countries where these species occur.
    Response: Under the ESA, we are required to determine whether a 
species is endangered or threatened based solely on the best scientific 
and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the 
species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any 
State or foreign nation to protect the species. We cannot consider 
economic impacts when making listing determinations. In addition, the 
standards for listing species in the CITES appendices are separate from 
the standards for listing species under the ESA. While we work with the 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to carry out the provisions of 
CITES, providing guidance and scientific support on marine issues and 
participating fully in the implementation of CITES for species under 
our jurisdiction, the listing of species on the CITES appendices is not 
a prerequisite for listing under the ESA. Furthermore, ESA listing will 
not restrict export of the six species from their range countries. 
Section 9(a)(1) restricts, among other things, only import into and 
export from the United States by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 
It does not regulate import into or export from other countries. In 
terms of consulting with foreign nations where the proposed species 
occur, and as required by ESA Section 4(b)(5)(B), we gave notice of and 
directly solicited comments on our proposal from the foreign 
ambassadors of each country in which the six species are believed to 
occur. We received a response only from the Embassy of the Argentine 
Republic.
    Comment 42: One commenter requested that we amend the proposal to 
use the double nomenclature ``Islas Malvinas'' and ``Falkland Islands'' 
in our reference to the Falkland Islands within the 12-month finding 
for the graytail skate (Bathyraja griseocauda) (80 FR 76067; December 
7, 2015), noting the dispute between the government of Argentina and 
the United Kingdom concerning the sovereignty over the archipelago.
    Response: We acknowledge the double nomenclature, but find an 
amendment to change the 12-month finding text for a species not 
included in this final rule to be unnecessary as no official 
regulation, nor regulatory text, containing the incomplete nomenclature 
was implemented or published in our U.S. Code of Federal Regulations as 
a result of the 12-month finding.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Listing Rule

    Based on public comments and new information received since the 
publication of the proposed listing rule, we made the changes listed 
below.
    1. We re-evaluated threats to the species and the extinction risk 
of the narrownose smoothhound shark based on new information and have 
determined that the species remains at a moderate risk of extinction.
    2. We re-evaluated threats to the species and the extinction risk 
of the spiny angelshark based on new information and have determined 
that the species is presently at a high risk of extinction.
    3. We also revised the common names of the proposed Squatina 
species to reflect ``angelsharks'' as a single word (in the proposed 
rule, we referred to them as ``angel sharks''). We find that either 
spelling is acceptable; however, because we have previously listed 
three other ``angelshark'' species under the ESA (81 FR 50394; August 
1, 2016), in order to be consistent, we are following the same naming 
convention for the angelshark species addressed in this final rule.
    A summary of the new information received since the publication of 
the proposed rule as it relates to the status of the narrownose 
smoothhound and spiny angelshark is presented in the remainder of this 
document, along with our re-evaluation of the extinction risk of these 
two species based on this new information and our final listing 
determinations for all six elasmobranch species. None of the 
information received since publication of the proposed rule causes us 
to reconsider our previous findings for the other four elasmobranch 
species as reflected in the

[[Page 21734]]

proposed rule. Thus, all of the information contained in the status 
review reports and proposed rule for the daggernose shark, Brazilian 
guitarfish, striped smoothhound shark, and Argentine angelshark is 
reaffirmed in this final action.

Species Determinations

    We did not receive any new information related to taxonomic status 
of any of the six elasmobranch species. Therefore, based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information described in the 
proposed rule (80 FR 7606, December 7, 2015) and included in the status 
review reports (Casselberry and Carlson 2015 a-f), we find that the 
daggernose shark (I. oxyrhynchus), Brazilian guitarfish (R. horkelii), 
striped smoothhound shark (M. fasciatus), narrownose smoothhound shark 
(M. schmitti), spiny angelshark (S. guggenheim), and Argentine 
angelshark (S. argentina) are taxonomically-distinct species, meeting 
the definition of ``species'' pursuant to section 3 of the ESA, and are 
eligible for listing under the ESA.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species

    Next we consider whether any one or a combination of the five 
factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA contribute to the 
extinction risk of these species and result in the species meeting the 
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species.'' The 
comments that we received on the proposed rule provided information 
that was either already considered in our analysis or was not 
substantial or relevant, and, therefore, did not change our analysis of 
or conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their 
interactions for the daggernose shark (I. oxyrhynchus), Brazilian 
guitarfish (R. horkelii), striped smoothhound shark (M. fasciatus), and 
Argentine angelshark (S. argentina). Therefore, all of the information, 
discussion, and conclusions on the summary of factors affecting these 
four elasmobranch species contained in the status review reports and 
proposed rule is reaffirmed in this final action.
    For the narrownose smoothhound and spiny angelshark, below we 
provide a summary and analysis of the new information received since 
publication of the proposed rule (and not already discussed in the 
response to public comments) on the threats to these two species.

Narrownose Smoothhound

    As noted in the proposed rule, the narrownose smoothhound is the 
most abundant and widely distributed triakid (houndshark) in the 
Argentine Sea (Van der Molen and Caille 2001). In Argentina, M. 
schmitti is considered the most important elasmobranch in Argentine 
fisheries, making up 9-12 percent of the total landings from coastal 
fleets (Gal[iacute]ndez et al. 2010), and is the most heavily exploited 
shark species in artisanal fisheries. Cort[eacute]s et al. (2016a) note 
that the shark is generally found in greater abundance in the estuarine 
systems of El Rinc[oacute]n and the R[iacute]o de la Plata, where it is 
mainly captured by the Argentine multi-species coastal fleet. In 
Uruguay, the species is the target of the artisanal gillnet fishery and 
incidentally caught by the artisanal and industrial trawl fleets 
operating in the Atlantic Ocean, including within the AUCFZ.
    In terms of factors affecting the status of the narrownose 
smoothhound, the proposed rule concluded that the main threat to this 
species is overutilization for commercial purposes, with current 
regulatory measures inadequate to protect the species from further 
overutilization. The proposed rule provided data on the decline in both 
the CPUE and biomass of the species throughout its range due to fishing 
pressure. Additionally, the proposed rule noted a decrease in the 
estimated mean size and size at maturity of narrownose smoothhounds off 
the coast of Argentina since the 1970s, providing further evidence of 
the overexploitation of the species.
    Since publication of the proposed rule, we received updated and new 
information related to the trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass of the 
narrownose smoothhound specifically in the AUCFZ (i.e., R[iacute]o de 
la Plata and Maritime Front). As the proposed rule notes, the AUCFZ is 
the area where current fisheries information indicates narrownose 
smoothhounds may likely be most abundant but also heavily targeted. The 
available data at the time of the proposed rule showed that landings of 
the species in the AUFCZ decreased in recent years, from 4,480 t in 
2010 to 2,921 t in 2014 (CTMFM 2015). Although annual catch limits for 
M. schmitti have been implemented in the AUCFZ by the CTMFM since 2002, 
the proposed rule noted that ``Due to a lack of abundance data since 
2003, it is unclear whether the catch limits for Mustelus spp. have 
positively affected the population . . . though it is worth noting that 
since 2010, catches of M. schmitti in the AUFCZ have been below the 
total allowable levels and on a decline (CTMFM 2015).'' Based on new 
information received from the CTMFM, biomass of the species in 2016 is 
estimated to be around 53 to 64 percent of virgin (i.e., 1983) biomass 
(CTMFM 2016). These values are based on three models from Cort[eacute]s 
et al. (2016a) that incorporated indices of abundance estimated from 
INIDEP research surveys and Argentine commercial fleet data and annual 
landings data of M. schmitti by Uruguayan and Argentinean vessels in 
the AUCFZ. While all models showed a general decline in biomass since 
the late 1980s, in recent years, biomass has appeared to stabilize and 
even increase (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016a). Since 2013, when management 
measures were implemented in the AUCFZ that set maximum catch limits 
per trip for sharks, rays, and chondrichthyans (see Resol. CFP 04/2013 
and Resol. CTMFM 09/2013), biomass of M. schmittti declined by less 
than 1 percent in two of the models examined, and increased by 2.6 
percent in the third model. However, based on our interpretation of the 
available information, we find that annual catch limits specifically 
for M. schmitti are currently set too high. For each model, 
Cort[eacute]s et al. (2016a) provide an estimate of the ``replacement 
capture'' for each year, which the authors define as the catch value 
that would produce stable biomass from time t to time t + 1. Since 
2012, when the CTMFM began setting species-specific total permissible 
catch limits for narrownose smoothhound, these catch limits have always 
been higher than the replacement capture estimates. Most recently, the 
2016 annual catch limit set by the CTMFM was 3,500 t despite 
replacement capture estimates that range from 2,568 t to 3,163 t. As 
such, these annual catch limits appear inadequate to ensure stable 
biomass numbers for M. schmitti into the future. Yet, as mentioned 
above, the models in Cort[eacute]s et al. (2016a) depict stable and 
increasing biomass trends for the species. These trends are likely 
explained by the fact that actual landings of the species have been 
close to and even below the replacement capture estimates since 2012, 
and while these landings figures may potentially indicate a decrease in 
the overall abundance of the species and, therefore, catchability of 
the species, modeled CPUE trends suggest otherwise, showing a slight 
decrease since the mid-2000s and no trend (or stable trend) in recent 
years (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016a). However, the authors caution that 
considering the susceptibility of the species to exploitation, the 
previous overexploitation of the species, and the uncertainty of the 
data available for the models, management of the species should be 
established using a highly

[[Page 21735]]

precautionary approach (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016a).
    Additionally, while the proposed rule noted a chronological 
decrease in the estimated size of maturity of narrownose smoothhounds 
in the AUCFZ and El Rincon regions, indicative of overutilization of 
the species, new information suggests that average maturity size may 
either vary by site or has potentially increased again in recent years. 
Specifically, the proposed rule reported maturity estimates of 60 
centimeters (cm) and 62 cm total length (TL) for males and females, 
respectively, in 1978 and noted that by 1998, maturity estimates had 
decreased to 57.6 cm TL for males and 59.9 cm for females (80 FR 76087; 
December 7, 2015). Based on individuals caught in 2004, Cortes (2007) 
found the length at 50 percent maturity (LT50) for females to be only 
56 cm TL. However, de Silveira et al. (2015) collected samples of 
narrownose smoothhounds from artisanal fisheries in La Paloma (Rocha) 
during the years 2014 and 2015 and determined that LT50 for males was 
60.2 cm TL (n = 431) and for females it was 61 cm TL (n = 280), 
estimates that match those that were recorded from over three decades 
ago. Given this new information, along with the indication of a 
potentially stable population, we find that the threat of 
overutilization within the AUCFZ may have been overstated in the 
proposed rule.
    In terms of other threats, the proposed rule noted the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms to control overexploitation of the 
species throughout large portions of its range, including within the 
AUCFZ. However, the proposed rule mentioned measures in the AUCFZ that 
were likely effective in protecting the narrownose smoothhound, 
including a prohibition of demersal trawling in a section known to be 
an important area for chondrichthyan reproduction (referred to as 
statistical rectangle 3656) and additional area closures to trawling 
gear in other portions of the AUCFZ, like within the R[iacute]o de la 
Plata (where historical estimates of narrownose smoothhound were as 
high as 44 t/nmi\2\; Cousseau et al. 1998), in order to protect 
whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) and juvenile hake from 
overexploitation by the fisheries.
    Since publication of the proposed rule, we received new information 
regarding the likely effectiveness of the prohibition in 3656 as it 
pertains to the protection of narrownose smoothhound. For 
clarification, the boundaries of 3656 are defined as follows: (A) To 
the north by the parallel 36[deg] S. and its intersection with the 
outer limit of the Rio de la Plata; (B) to the south, by the parallel 
37[deg] S.; (C) to the west, by the outer limit of the Argentine 
territorial sea; D) to the east, by the meridian 56[deg]00' W. 
Specifically, Colonello and Massa (2016) analyzed data from coastal 
research surveys conducted between 2011 and 2015 to examine the spatial 
distribution and relative abundance, including life history stages, of 
a number of shark and ray species within and around the 3656 closure. 
The surveys covered coastal areas of Buenos Aires and Uruguay up to 50 
m depths. Results confirmed the presence of both sexes and all life 
history stages of M. schmitti within the 3656 rectangle (Colonello and 
Massa 2016). In the spring surveys (conducted in November and 
December), sets frequently showed high densities of narrownose 
smoothhound (greater than 2 t/mn\2\ (tonnes per square nautical mile)), 
including within the 3656 closure (Colonello and Massa 2016). The 
authors note that the highest concentrations of adult males and adult 
non-pregnant and pregnant females in the spring surveys were observed 
in shallow areas, supporting the assumption these areas are used for 
reproductive purposes (Colonello and Massa 2016). However, as the most 
coastal zone of the 3656 rectangle is controlled by the Province of 
Buenos Aires (Argentine territorial waters), the authors stress the 
need to ensure the full synchronicity of the closure of both the 3656 
area and the Provincial part of the rectangle. This is particularly 
important since the Colonello and Massa (2016) data show that during 
the months when this does not occur (i.e., November and December), 
there is a redistribution of fishing effort specifically within the 
open Provincial coastal areas of 3656 (and in neighboring areas next to 
the closed areas of 3656) (Colonello and Massa 2016). Thus, while we 
find that the 3656 closure is adequate in providing a high degree of 
protection from fishery-related mortality for the narrownose 
smoothhound during important reproductive events, we note that the 
species is capable of moving in and out of this closure area and that 
all life history stages are found outside of the closure area and, 
therefore, juveniles and reproducing adults are still susceptible to 
being caught by fishing vessels. Additionally, when the Provincial area 
is also open, this significantly decreases the overall effectiveness of 
the closure in protecting sensitive life history stages of species from 
fishery-related mortality.
    As we have no new information on threats to the species outside of 
the AUCFZ, our conclusions from the proposed rule regarding threats to 
the species within Argentinean and Uruguayan waters outside of the 
AUCFZ, and Brazilian waters, remains the same.

Spiny Angelshark

    As noted in the proposed rule, spiny angelsharks are found from 
Brazil to Argentina. Throughout its range, the species is heavily 
fished by commercial and artisanal fishermen; however, according to 
Cort[eacute]s et al. (2006b), more than 80 percent of the landings of 
S. guggenheim correspond to catches between 34[deg] S. and 42[deg] S. 
latitudes, at depths less than 50 m. In Argentina, the spiny angelshark 
is commercially exploited in local fisheries that occur in the San 
Mat[iacute]as Gulf (Perier et al. 2011), which comprises around 10 
percent of its range. The species is also commercially exploited by the 
fisheries operating in the AUFCZ, which overlaps with areas of higher 
concentration of the species (Jaureguizar et al. 2006; Colonello et al. 
2007; Massa and Hozbor 2008; V[ouml]gler et al. 2008) and comprises 
around 25 percent of the species' range. In Uruguay, spiny angelsharks 
are captured by industrial trawling fleets in coastal and offshore 
waters (V[ouml]gler et al. 2008), and in southern Brazil, spiny 
angelsharks have been heavily fished by industrial trawlers and gillnet 
fleets for the past few decades (Haimovici 1998; V[ouml]gler et al. 
2008).
    In terms of factors affecting the status of the spiny angelshark, 
the proposed rule concluded that the main threat to this species is 
overutilization for commercial purposes. The proposed rule provided 
data on the decline of the species in Brazil, noting that the impact of 
heavy fishing pressure on the species by trawlers and gillnet fleets 
since the 1980s resulted in an 85 percent decline in the abundance of 
the S. guggenheim population. Fishing mortality rates exceeded 
population growth rates, with an annual rate of population decline of 
16 percent in the mid-1990s. In Argentina, the proposed rule cited CPUE 
data that showed population declines of up to 58 percent in the late 
1990s, but reported a lack of recent abundance estimates or trends 
throughout the rest of the species range, particularly in the AUCFZ.
    Since publication of the proposed rule, we received updated and new 
information related to the trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass of the 
spiny angelshark specifically in the AUCFZ. As the proposed rule notes, 
the AUCFZ comprises around one quarter of the species' range and is 
where survey data suggest the species is likely at

[[Page 21736]]

highest concentration. The available data at the time of the proposed 
rule showed that landings of the species in the AUFCZ decreased in 
recent years, from 3,763 t in 2010 to below 2,300 t in 2014 (CTMFM 
2015). These catch levels are similar to those reported in the 1990s in 
Argentine waters, which resulted in declines of up to 58 percent in the 
species' abundance. Beginning in 2012, annual maximum permitted catch 
limits for all Squatina spp. (of which the large majority are S. 
guggenheim) have been implemented in the AUCFZ by the CTMFM; however, 
these limits have never been met since 2013. The proposed rule 
concluded that '' . . . without effort information, it is unclear 
whether these regulations and the corresponding decreases in landings 
can be attributed to adequate control of the exploitation of the 
species or rather reflects [sic] the lower abundance of the species 
from declining populations, or more likely a combination of the two 
scenarios'' (80 FR 76097).
    Based on new information received from the CTMFM, biomass of the 
species in 2016 is estimated to be around 46 percent of optimum biomass 
for the species (CTMFM 2016). This value is based on two models from 
Cort[eacute]s et al. (2016b) that incorporated indices of abundance 
estimated from INIDEP research surveys and annual landings data of 
angelsharks by Uruguayan and Argentinean vessels in the AUCFZ. The 
fishing mortality rate of S. guggenheim in 2016 was estimated to be 65 
percent higher than the fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable 
yield (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016b). Based on the estimates of biomass 
since the early 1980s, S. guggenheim biomass has declined by 77 to 81 
percent (depending on the model) (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016b). Since 
2013, when management measures were implemented in the AUCFZ that set 
maximum catch limits per trip for sharks, rays, and chondrichthyans 
(see Resol. CFP 04/2013 and Resol. CTMFM 09/2013), S. guggenheim 
biomass has declined by 14 percent (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016b). 
Additionally, abundance has been on a declining trend since the early 
2000s (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016b). Likely a major contributing factor 
to these declines is the fact that landings of the species have been 
higher than estimated replacement captures since 2002 (Cort[eacute]s et 
al. 2016b). Also, since 2012, when the CTMFM began setting total 
permissible catch limits for angelsharks, these maximum catch limits 
have always been higher than the replacement capture estimates. In 
fact, most recently, the 2016 annual catch limit set by the CTMFM was 
2,600 t despite modeled replacement capture estimates of 1,761 t and 
1,765 t (Cort[eacute]s et al. 2016b). Given the clearly unsustainable 
fishing levels and inadequacy of existing regulatory measures, the 
decline in the biomass and the abundance of the species is likely to 
continue to occur.
    In addition to the biomass and fishing mortality estimates, we 
received new information regarding the likely effectiveness of the 
AUCFZ prohibition in 3656 as it pertains to the protection of spiny 
angelsharks. The Colonello and Massa (2016) study, which was mentioned 
above in the narrownose smoothhound discussion, also examined the 
spatial distribution and relative abundance, including life history 
stages, of the spiny angelshark within and around the 3656 closure. 
Results confirmed the presence of both sexes and all life history 
stages of S. guggenheim within the 3656 rectangle; however, the sets 
that frequently showed the highest densities of spiny angelsharks 
(greater than 2 t/mn\2\) occurred north of 36[deg] S. latitude, within 
the R[iacute]o de la Plata estuary and territorial waters of Uruguay 
(Colonello and Massa 2016).
    In contrast, based on landings data from the Argentine commercial 
fleet, Hozbor and P[eacute]rez (2016) suggest that the distribution of 
the species may be concentrated in and around 3656. Using official 
fisheries statistics from the Argentine commercial fleet between 2000 
and 2015, Hozbor and P[eacute]rez (2016) found that the fleet of boats 
18-25 m in length mostly operated in the depth stratum where S. 
guggenheim would occur, whereas the boats <18 m had a more limited area 
of operation, and the boats >25 m fished in depths greater than 50 m 
and south of 38[deg] S. latitude, and, therefore, would likely only 
catch S. argentina. Not surprisingly, the authors found that the fleet 
of 18-25 m boats represented, on average, about 52 percent of the 
annual total catch of S. guggenheim over the time period (Hozbor and 
P[eacute]rez 2016). Using the fishery reports from this fleet, the 
authors examined the distribution of landings of S. guggenheim by 
statistical rectangle (for example, statistical rectangle 3655 is a 
rectangle defined by lines drawn from 36[deg] S. latitude to 37[deg] S. 
latitude and 55[deg] W. longitude to 56[deg] W. longitude). The results 
showed that the landings from 2000-2015 were greatest in rectangles 
3655, 3756, and 3656 (which is the closure area); however, since the 
3656 closure has been in effect, landings have decreased in 3656 and 
increased in the neighboring rectangles including 3556, 3655, and 3756 
(Hozbor and P[eacute]rez 2016). Additionally, the rectangle covering 
the R[iacute]o de la Plata estuary (3555) also showed an increase in 
landings in recent years to the point where landings from this 
rectangle are around the same magnitude as those in 3655 and 3756 
(Hozbor and P[eacute]rez 2016). In other words, similar to the findings 
from the Colonello and Massa (2016), the data from Hozbor and 
P[eacute]rez (2016) also suggest a potential redistribution of fishing 
effort around the closed area (3656). For spiny angelsharks, however, 
this may portend even greater declines in the species as the Colonello 
and Massa (2016) observed higher abundance of the species north of 
36[deg] S. latitude, including in the R[iacute]o de la Plata estuary, 
where the data from Hozbor and P[eacute]rez (2016) indicate a recent 
increasing trend in landings of the species, likely due to the 
redistribution of fishing effort as a result of the 3656 closure. As 
such, we do not find that existing regulatory measures in the AUCFZ, 
including the 3656 closure, are adequately decreasing the threat of 
overutilization to the point where the species is no longer at risk of 
declines.
    In Uruguay, the proposed rule provided angelshark landings data by 
Uruguayan fleets operating in the AUCFZ. The proposed rule noted that 
the proportion of Uruguayan landings compared to Argentinian landings 
increased to 18.4 percent of the total by 2014 (80 FR 76071; December 
7, 2015), as did the number of angelshark landings attributed to 
Uruguayan vessels (from 26 t in 2012 to 142 t and 158 t in 2013 and 
2014, respectively) (80 FR 76095; December 7, 2015). The proposed rule 
further concluded that this information indicated ``a potential 
increasing trend in the exploitation of the spiny angelshark by 
Uruguayan fishing vessels'' (80 FR 76095). However, based on recent 
landings data from the Direcci[oacute]n Nacional de Recursos 
Acu[aacute]ticos (DINARA) presented to the CTMFM, the Uruguayan 
proportion may have been overstated in the proposed rule. In 2014, 
landings for Squatina spp. in the AUCFZ was 158 t by Uruguayan vessels; 
however, this comprised only 6.9 percent of the total landings of 
angelsharks from the treaty area. In 2015, Uruguayan vessels landed 104 
t of Squatina spp., comprising only 4.4 percent of the total. However, 
it is worth noting that fishing effort of Uruguayan vessels tends to be 
concentrated in the R[iacute]o de la Plata estuary area and the 
Uruguayan coast north of 36[deg] S. latitude, where, as mentioned 
above, higher abundance of the species is observed.
    Additionally, as noted in the proposed rule, Squatina spp. are also

[[Page 21737]]

targeted and caught as bycatch in Uruguayan waters by artisanal 
longliners and gillnetters. New information on the catch of the species 
by artisanal fishing vessels was provided in Ligrone et al. (2014) who 
surveyed 21 artisanal fishermen operating in Uruguay between 2006 and 
2009. Ligrone et al. (2014) found that Squatina spp. comprised 11 
percent of the total landing weight, with angelsharks mainly caught by 
large mesh fishing between October and February and concentrated near 
the ports of La Paloma or Cabo Polonio. While there is a ban on 
trawling from the coast of Uruguay to 7 nmi offshore, we could find no 
similar prohibition for other types of gear.
    In Brazilian waters, no new information was found on threats to the 
species, therefore, our conclusions from the proposed rule remain the 
same.

Extinction Risk

    As stated previously, the information received from public comments 
on the proposed rule was either already considered in our analysis or 
was not substantial or relevant, and, therefore none of the information 
affected our extinction risk evaluations of the daggernose shark (I. 
oxyrhynchus), Brazilian guitarfish (R. horkelii), striped smoothhound 
shark (M. fasciatus), and Argentine angelshark (S. argentina). 
Therefore, all of the information contained in the status review 
reports and proposed rule on the extinction risk of these four 
elasmobranch species is reaffirmed in this final action. Below, we 
provide a discussion of how the new information received since 
publication of the final rule has affected our extinction risk analyses 
for narrownose smoothhound and spiny angelshark.

Narrownose Smoothhound Shark

    We find that the best available information, including the 
information from the proposed rule as well as the new information 
received, indicates that M. schmitti currently faces a moderate risk of 
extinction. While there is conflicting evidence regarding the 
previously reported chronological decline in mean size of maturity, and 
recent evidence that the declining trend in the AUCFZ population of 
narrownose smoothhounds has slowed or potentially halted, we note that 
regulatory measures are not currently adequate to protect the species 
from overutilization. While landings of the species within the AUCFZ 
have remained close to or below replacement capture estimates in recent 
years, the annual catch limits have consistently been set too high, 
and, if met by fishermen, would result in a continual decline in the 
species through the foreseeable future.
    Additionally, current closures to protect the population of the 
species within the AUCFZ may not be adequate to significantly decrease 
its overall risk of extinction, particularly when the Provincial 
section of the 3656 closure is open to fishing. As was demonstrated in 
the study by Colonello and Massa (2016), the highest concentrations of 
juveniles and reproductively active adults were observed in shallow 
areas, including within the Provincial section of 3656, during the 
spring surveys in November and December, a time when fishing is allowed 
within the Provincial area. Also, the redistribution of fishing effort 
during the closure to neighboring areas, including the Provincial area, 
suggests that fishermen are likely targeting the species as it moves 
out of the closure, thus decreasing the effectiveness of the closure in 
protecting the species during important reproductive events.
    Overall, while we find that there is still considerable uncertainty 
regarding the species' current abundance throughout its entire range, 
the best available information indicates that the species has likely 
experienced population declines of significant magnitude since the 
1980s due to overutilization, including a 36-47 percent decline in 
biomass within the AUCFZ and an 85 percent decline in abundance in 
waters off Brazil, with the possible extirpation of a local breeding 
population. The species continues to be heavily exploited throughout 
its range, both targeted and caught as bycatch, and we find that 
existing regulatory measures are inadequate to prevent further declines 
in the species throughout the foreseeable future.

Spiny Angelshark

    We find that the best available information, including the 
information from the proposed rule as well as the new information 
received, indicates that S. guggenheim currently faces a high risk of 
extinction. The primary threat to S. guggenheim is overutilization in 
artisanal and commercial fisheries. In Argentina, S. guggenheim biomass 
has declined by 77 to 81 percent since the 1980s and, despite 
management measures that include annual catch limits and trawling 
prohibitions, biomass continues to decline. Additionally, abundance has 
been on a declining trend since the early 2000s, with current fishing 
mortality rates 65 percent higher than what would attain maximum 
sustainable yield. Existing regulatory mechanisms are likely inadequate 
to prevent further declines in the abundance of the species, 
considering that annual catch limits are currently set too high to 
achieve a stable biomass and the 3656 closure does not appear to 
coincide with the areas of highest S. guggenheim density within the 
AUCFZ. Additionally, a result of the 3656 closure has been a 
redistribution of fishing effort into areas of the AUCFZ where S. 
guggenheim occurs more frequently, thereby increasing the number of 
fishery-related mortalities for the species (as demonstrated by recent 
landings data). While the proposed rule stated that ``While the 
Brazilian populations have experienced substantial declines and remain 
at risk from overutilization by fisheries, the same cannot be concluded 
with certainty for the populations farther south in the species' 
range'' (80 FR 76099; December 7, 2015) we find this no longer to be 
accurate. Based on the new information above, we find that the species 
is experiencing substantial declines and remains at risk from 
overutilization by fisheries throughout its range. Given the 
significant demographic risks to the species (e.g., extremely low 
fecundity, declining population growth rate, and limited connectivity), 
we find that the continued decline in the species' abundance as a 
result of overutilization, with evidence of continued and heavy fishing 
pressure on the species throughout its entire range, and the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory measures to protect the species from this 
threat, are significantly compromising the long-term viability of the 
species and placing its persistence into question.

Protective Efforts

    Finally, we considered conservation efforts to protect each species 
and evaluated whether these conservation efforts are adequate to 
mitigate the existing threats to the point where extinction risk is 
significantly lowered and the species' status is improved. None of the 
comments we received since publication of the proposed rule provided 
any new, relevant or substantial information regarding conservation 
efforts to protect the six elasmobranch species. Thus, all of the 
information, discussion, and conclusions on the protective efforts for 
the six elasmobranch species contained in the status review reports and 
proposed rule are reaffirmed in this final action.

Final Determination

    We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial 
information,

[[Page 21738]]

including the petition, the information in the status review reports 
(Casselbury and Carlson 2015 a-f), the comments of peer reviewers, 
public comments, and information that has become available since the 
publication of the proposed rule (80 FR 76067; December 7, 2015). Based 
on the best available scientific and commercial information, and after 
considering efforts being made to protect each of these species, we 
find that the daggernose shark, Brazilian guitarfish, striped 
smoothhound shark, spiny angelshark, and Argentine angelshark are in 
danger of extinction throughout their respective ranges. We have also 
determined that the narrownose smoothhound is not currently in danger 
of extinction, but likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout its range.
    As none of the information received since publication of the 
proposed rule provided any new, relevant or substantial information 
that changed our analyses or conclusions that led to our determinations 
for the daggernose shark, Brazilian guitarfish, striped smoothhound 
shark, and Argentine angelshark, the determinations in the proposed 
rule for these species (80 FR 76067; December 7, 2015) are reaffirmed 
in this final rule. For the spiny angelshark and narrownose smoothhound 
shark, we provide a summary of our final listing determinations for 
these species based on the new information considered and analyzed in 
this final rule as well as information discussed in the proposed rule 
(80 FR 76067; December 7, 2015).
    We have determined that the spiny angelshark is presently in danger 
of extinction from threats of overutilization and the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms (see the discussion and analysis within 
this final rule as well as the proposed rule for further information). 
Factors supporting this conclusion include: (1) Significantly reduced 
abundance and biomass (e.g. declines in CPUE of up to 58 percent in 
Argentina, biomass declines of 77-81 percent in the AUCFZ, and 85 
percent decline in Brazilian populations); (2) declining population 
trends (e.g., in the AUCFZ, abundance has been on a declining trend 
since the early 2000s, with current fishing mortality rates 65 percent 
higher than what would attain maximum sustainable yield; in Brazil, 
annual rate of population decline was estimated at 16 percent in the 
mid-1990s); (3) high susceptibility to overfishing and vulnerability to 
depletion given the species' present demographic risks (e.g., extremely 
low fecundity, low abundance and declining population trends, and 
limited connectivity); (4) heavily fished both historically and 
currently, with fleets that operate year-round, including during the 
sharks' reproductive season migrations, hence capturing all life stages 
of spiny angelsharks and contributing to the decline and 
overutilization of the species throughout its range; and (5) current 
regulations that are inadequate to protect the species from further 
overutilization throughout its range (e.g., annual catch limits that 
are currently set too high to achieve a stable biomass and fishery area 
closures that do not appear to coincide with the areas of highest S. 
guggenheim density).
    The spiny angelshark has suffered significant population declines 
throughout its range due to overutilization in industrial and artisanal 
fisheries. The decline and subsequent rarity of the spiny angelshark in 
an area that comprises around half of its range (i.e., off Brazil), 
combined with the declines in biomass of up to 81 percent in the AUCFZ, 
its significant demographic risks, and evidence of continued and heavy 
fishing pressure on the species throughout its range, make the spiny 
angelshark particularly susceptible to increased local extirpations and 
place it at immediate risk of extinction from environmental and 
anthropogenic perturbations or catastrophic events. Additionally, with 
no indication that abundance trends have stabilized or reversed in 
recent years, and evidence that existing regulatory measures are 
inadequate to alter this trend, this species will continue to suffer 
from fishery-related mortality throughout its range and remain in 
danger of extinction. Therefore, we are listing the spiny angelshark as 
endangered under the ESA.
    We have determined that the narrownose smoothhound shark is not 
presently in danger of extinction throughout its range, but likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future from threats of overutilization and 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (see the discussion 
and analysis within this final rule as well as the proposed rule for 
further information). Factors supporting this conclusion include: (1) 
Moderate declines in abundance (e.g., most abundant houndshark in the 
Argentine Sea yet declines in biomass of 36-47 percent in AUCFZ, 85 
percent decline in a Brazilian winter migrant population and potential 
extirpation of local population); (2) potential stabilization of 
biomass in AUCFZ (based on recent stock assessment data); (3) moderate 
susceptibility to overfishing and vulnerability to depletion given the 
species' present demographic risks (e.g., relatively high intrinsic 
rate of population increase and ability to withstand moderate levels of 
exploitation of up to 10 percent of the total population); (4) heavily 
exploited throughout its range (considered the most important 
elasmobranch in Argentine fisheries, making up 9-12 percent of the 
total landings from coastal fleets; target of artisanal gillnet 
fisheries); (5) decreases in average size of landed sharks (observed by 
the late 1990s and early 2000s); and (6) current regulations that are 
inadequate to protect the species from overutilization and further 
decline throughout its range (e.g., annual catch limits that are 
currently set too high to achieve a stable biomass and fishery area 
closures that may not protect the species from fishery-related 
mortality).
    The species has experienced population declines of varying 
magnitude throughout its range. Although the species' relatively high 
intrinsic rate of population increase and ability to withstand moderate 
levels of exploitation up to 10 percent of the total population 
provides the narrownose smoothhound shark with some protection from 
extinction, and is likely the reason why the species remains the most 
abundant houndshark in the Argentine Sea, the decreases in populations 
(particularly off Brazil) and average size of the species suggest it is 
being exploited at a level exceeding what it can sustain. While biomass 
may currently be stable in the AUCFZ, this does not appear to be a 
result of adequate existing regulatory measures as annual catch limits 
have consistently been set too high in the fishery. In fact, if these 
catch limits are actually met by fishermen, it would result in a 
continual decline in the species through the future. Therefore, while 
the species is not presently in danger of extinction, we find that it 
is likely to become so within the foreseeable future as it has already 
suffered declines in abundance from historical overutilization, 
continues to be heavily exploited throughout its range, and lacks 
adequate protection from these threats. Therefore, we are listing the 
narrownose smoothhound shark as threatened under the ESA.
    Because we find that all six species are either in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future 
throughout all of their ranges, there is no need to evaluate any of the 
species' status in any portion of their range.

[[Page 21739]]

Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 
Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the 
ESA to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species or 
result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat 
should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical 
habitat if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and 
prohibitions on taking and certain other activities (16 U.S.C. 1538, 
1533(d)). In addition, recognition of the species' imperiled status 
through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and State 
agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.

Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 
regulations (50 CFR part 402) require Federal agencies to consult with 
us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It is unlikely that the 
listing of these species under the ESA will increase the number of 
section 7 consultations because these species occur entirely outside of 
the United States and are unlikely to be affected by Federal actions.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is 
listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, 
critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a 
species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign 
countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
    The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed 
above identify the geographical areas occupied by I. oxyrhynchus, R. 
horkelii, M. fasciatus, M. schmitti, S. guggenheim, and S. argentina as 
being entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot designate 
occupied critical habitat for these species. We can designate critical 
habitat in areas in the United States that are unoccupied by the 
species if the area(s) are determined to be essential for the 
conservation of the species. The best available scientific and 
commercial information on these species does not indicate that U.S. 
waters provide any specific essential biological function for any of 
these species. Therefore, based on the best available information, we 
do not intend to designate critical habitat for I. oxyrhynchus, R. 
horkelii, M. fasciatus, M. schmitti, S. guggenheim, and S. argentina.

ESA Section 9 and 4(d) Prohibitions

    Because we are listing I. oxyrhynchus, R. horkelii, M. fasciatus, 
S. guggenheim, and S. argentina as endangered, all of the prohibitions 
of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to these species. These 
include prohibitions against the import and export of any endangered 
species; the sale and offering for sale of such species in interstate 
or foreign commerce; the delivery, receipt, carriage, transport, or 
shipment of such species in interstate or foreign commerce and in the 
course of a commercial activity; and the ``take'' of these species 
within the U.S., within the U.S. territorial seas, or on the high seas. 
Take is defined as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such 
conduct.'' These prohibitions apply to all persons subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States.
    In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) requires the 
Secretary to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of the species. We have evaluated the needs of and threats 
to the narrownose smoothhound shark and have determined that protective 
regulations pursuant to section 4(d) are not currently necessary and 
advisable for the conservation of the species. The main threats 
identified for the species are overutilization and inadequate existing 
regulatory mechanisms. The threat of overutilization is primarily a 
result of heavy fishing pressure by foreign industrial, commercial and 
artisanal fisheries. Because the narrownose smoothhound occurs entirely 
outside of the United States, is not targeted or caught by U.S. 
fishermen, or threatened by commercial trade with the United States, 
extending the section 9(a) prohibitions to this species will not result 
in added conservation benefits or species protection. Therefore, we do 
not intend to issue section 4(d) regulations for the narrownose 
smoothhound shark.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of 
Section 9 of the ESA

    On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that 
requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time 
a species is listed, those activities that would or would not likely 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA.
    The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the 
effects of this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the 
species' ranges. Activities that we believe could (subject to the 
exemptions set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539) result in a violation of 
section 9 prohibitions for the five endangered species include, but are 
not limited to, the following:
    (1) Possessing, delivering, transporting, or shipping any 
individual, part (dead or alive), or product taken in violation of 
section 9(a)(1);
    (2) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in 
interstate or foreign commerce any individual, part, or product in the 
course of a commercial activity;
    (3) Selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any individual, part, or product except antique articles at least 100 
years old; and
    (4) Importing or exporting these species or any part or product of 
these species.
    We emphasize that whether a violation results from a particular 
activity is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each 
incident. Further, an activity not listed may in fact constitute or 
result in a violation.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Not Likely Constitute a 
Violation of Section 9 of the ESA

    Although the determination of whether any given activity 
constitutes a violation is fact dependent, we consider the following 
actions, depending on the circumstances, as being unlikely to violate 
the prohibitions in ESA section 9: (1) Take authorized by, and carried 
out in accordance with the terms and conditions of, an ESA section 
10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for purposes of scientific research 
or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species; and 
(2) continued possession of parts and products that were in possession 
at the

[[Page 21740]]

time of listing. Such parts and products may be non-commercially 
exported or imported; however the importer or exporter must be able to 
provide evidence to show that the parts or products meet the criteria 
of ESA section 9(b)(1) (i.e., held in a controlled environment at the 
time of listing, in a non-commercial activity).

References

    A complete list of the references used in this final rule is 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 
1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to 
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive 
Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism 
assessment is not required.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

    Endangered and threatened species.


    Dated: May 4, 2017.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 
are amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).


0
2. In Sec.  223.102, amend the table in paragraph (e) by adding a new 
entry for ``Shark, narrownose smoothhound'' in alphabetical order by 
common name under the ``Fishes'' table subheading to read as follows:


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (e) The threatened species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary 
of Commerce are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Species \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------    Citation(s) for      Critical
                                                  Description of         listing          habitat     ESA  rules
         Common name            Scientific name   listed entity     determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
            Fishes
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Shark, narrownose smoothhound  Mustelus          Entire species.  [Insert Federal                NA           NA
                                schmitti.                          Register page where
                                                                   the document
                                                                   begins], May 10,
                                                                   2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.


0
4. In Sec.  224.101, paragraph (h), amend the table by adding new 
entries for five species in alphabetical order by common name under the 
``Fishes'' table subheading to read as follows:


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (h) The endangered species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary 
of Commerce are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Species \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------    Citation(s) for      Critical
                                                  Description of         listing          habitat     ESA  rules
         Common name            Scientific name   listed entity     determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
            Fishes
 
Angelshark, Argentine........  Squatina          Entire species.  [Insert Federal                NA           NA
                                argentina.                         Register page where
                                                                   the document
                                                                   begins], May 10,
                                                                   2017.
 

[[Page 21741]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Angelshark, spiny............  Squatina          Entire species.  [Insert Federal                NA           NA
                                guggenheim.                        Register page where
                                                                   the document
                                                                   begins], May 10,
                                                                   2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Guitarfish, Brazilian........  Rhinobatos        Entire species.  [Insert Federal                NA           NA
                                horkelii.                          Register page where
                                                                   the document
                                                                   begins], May 10,
                                                                   2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Shark, daggernose............  Isogomphodon      Entire species.  [Insert Federal                NA           NA
                                oxyrhynchus.                       Register page where
                                                                   the document
                                                                   begins], May 10,
                                                                   2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Shark, striped smoothhound...  Mustelus          Entire species.  [Insert Federal                NA           NA
                                fasciatus.                         Register page where
                                                                   the document
                                                                   begins], May 10,
                                                                   2017.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

[FR Doc. 2017-09416 Filed 5-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P



                                                21722             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                licensed LPTV stations. Given the                       for reconsideration filed by the                      argentina). We are publishing this final
                                                nature of these services, we will                       American Public Media Group, the NCE                  rule to implement our final
                                                presume that all of these licensees                     Licensees, the Public Broadcasting                    determination to list the daggernose
                                                qualify as small entities under the SBA                 Parties, and Lisa S. Campo on behalf of               shark, Brazilian guitarfish, striped
                                                definition. We note, however, that                      the State University of New York, are                 smoothhound shark, spiny angelshark
                                                under the SBA’s definition, revenue of                  granted in part, dismissed to the extent              and Argentine angelshark as endangered
                                                affiliates that are not LPTV stations                   discussed in footnote 42, and otherwise               species under the ESA, and the
                                                should be aggregated with the LPTV                      are denied, to the extent stated herein.              narrownose smoothhound shark as a
                                                station revenues in determining whether                    39. It is further ordered that the                 threatened species under the ESA. We
                                                a concern is small. Our estimate may                    applications for review filed by the NCE              have reviewed the status of these six
                                                thus overstate the number of small                      Licensees and the University of                       species, including efforts being made to
                                                entities since the revenue figure on                    Michigan are dismissed as moot.                       protect these species, and considered
                                                which it is based does not include or                      40. It is further ordered that, pursuant           public comments submitted on the
                                                aggregate revenues from non-LPTV                        to section 553(d) of the Administrative               proposed rule as well as new
                                                affiliated companies.                                   Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), and                   information received since publication
                                                   34. The Order on Reconsideration                     section 1.427(b) of the Commission’s                  of the proposed rule. We have made our
                                                provides NCE filers with greater                        rules, 47 CFR 1.427(b), this Order on                 final determinations based on the best
                                                flexibility to report SUFRNs than                       Reconsideration shall be effective May                scientific and commercial data
                                                previously allowed by the 323 and 323–                  10, 2017, except those provisions that                available. We will not designate critical
                                                E Order. It does not adopt additional                   contain new or modified information                   habitat for any of these species because
                                                reporting, recordkeeping, other                         collection requirements that require                  the geographical areas occupied by
                                                compliance requirements.                                approval by the Office of Management                  these species are entirely outside U.S.
                                                   35. The Order on Reconsideration                     and Budget under the Paperwork                        jurisdiction, and we have not identified
                                                provides relief to NCE filers by allowing               Reduction Act will become effective                   any unoccupied areas within U.S.
                                                them wider latitude to report SUFRNs—                   after the Commission publishes a notice               jurisdiction that are essential to the
                                                which do not require disclosure of an                   in the Federal Register announcing                    conservation of any of these species.
                                                SSN, date of birth, or other personal                   such approval and the relevant effective              DATES: This final rule is effective June
                                                information—for individual attributable                 date.                                                 9, 2017.
                                                interest holders reported on Form 323–                                                                        ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species
                                                E. Accordingly, NCE filers may report                   Federal Communications Commission.
                                                                                                        Marlene H. Dortch,
                                                                                                                                                              Division, NMFS Office of Protected
                                                an SUFRN on Form 323–E for an                                                                                 Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West
                                                attributable individual who has not                     Secretary.
                                                                                                                                                              Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
                                                obtained a CORES FRN or RUFRN at the                    [FR Doc. 2017–09461 Filed 5–9–17; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                                                                              FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                time the filer submits its ownership                    BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
                                                report, without the need to first use                                                                         Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of
                                                reasonable and good-faith efforts to                                                                          Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427–
                                                obtain the information needed to report                                                                       8403. Copies of the petition, status
                                                                                                        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE                                review reports, Federal Register notices,
                                                a CORES FRN or RUFRN. The
                                                Commission concludes that allowing                                                                            and the list of references are available
                                                                                                        National Oceanic and Atmospheric                      on our Web site at http://
                                                NCEs greater flexibility to report an                   Administration
                                                SUFRN for an attributable individual, in                                                                      www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
                                                lieu of a CORES FRN or RUFRN, will                                                                            petition81.htm.
                                                                                                        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
                                                address the concerns that have been                                                                           SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                raised regarding the potential impact of                [Docket No. 150909839–7369–02]
                                                                                                                                                              Background
                                                the CORES FRN/RUFRN requirement on                      RIN 0648–XE184
                                                NCE stations, including small entities.                                                                          On July 15, 2013, we received a
                                                The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the                                                                         petition from WildEarth Guardians to
                                                                                                        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
                                                SBA did not file any comments in                                                                              list 81 marine species or subpopulations
                                                                                                        and Plants; Final Rule to List 6 Foreign
                                                response to the proposed rules in this                                                                        as threatened or endangered under the
                                                                                                        Species of Elasmobranchs Under the
                                                proceeding.                                                                                                   ESA. This petition included species
                                                                                                        Endangered Species Act
                                                   36. The Commission will send a copy                                                                        from many different taxonomic groups,
                                                of this Order on Reconsideration to                     AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries                    and we prepared our 90-day findings in
                                                Congress and the Government                             Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and                  batches by taxonomic group. We found
                                                Accountability Office pursuant to the                   Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),                    that the petitioned actions may be
                                                Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.                  Commerce.                                             warranted for 24 of the species and 3 of
                                                801(a)(1)(A).                                           ACTION: Final rule.                                   the subpopulations and announced the
                                                   37. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, it                                                                      initiation of status reviews for each of
                                                is ordered that, pursuant to the authority              SUMMARY:     We, NMFS, issue a final rule             the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78
                                                contained in sections 1, 2(a), 4(i), 257,               to list six foreign marine elasmobranch               FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR
                                                303(r), 307, 309, and 310 of the                        species under the Endangered Species                  66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376,
                                                Communications Act of 1934, as                          Act (ESA). These six species are the                  November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880,
                                                amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i),                 daggernose shark (Isogomphodon                        February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104,
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                257, 303(r), 307, 309, and 310, this                    oxyrhynchus), Brazilian guitarfish                    February 24, 2014). On December 7,
                                                Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED.                    (Rhinobatos horkelii), striped                        2015, we published a proposed rule to
                                                   38. It is further ordered that, pursuant             smoothhound shark (Mustelus                           list the daggernose shark, Brazilian
                                                to section 405 of the Communications                    fasciatus), narrownose smoothhound                    guitarfish, striped smoothhound shark,
                                                Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405,                 shark (Mustelus schmitti), spiny                      and Argentine angelshark as endangered
                                                and section 1.429 of the Commission’s                   angelshark (Squatina guggenheim), and                 species under the ESA, and the
                                                rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the petitions                 Argentine angelshark (Squatina                        narrownose smoothhound shark and


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00046   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                           21723

                                                spiny angelshark as threatened species                  habitat characteristics, availability of              spatial structure and connectivity, and/
                                                under the ESA (80 FR 76067). We                         data, particular threats, ability to predict          or diversity) with projected threats
                                                requested public comment on                             threats, and the reliability to forecast the          likely to have insignificant impacts on
                                                information in the status reviews and                   effects of these threats and future events            these demographic trends. ‘‘Moderate
                                                proposed rule, and the comment period                   on the status of the species under                    Risk’’—a species is at moderate risk of
                                                was open through February 5, 2016.                      consideration. Because a species may be               extinction if it exhibits a trajectory
                                                This final rule provides a discussion of                susceptible to a variety of threats for               indicating that it will more likely than
                                                the information we received during and                  which different data are available, or                not be at a high level of extinction risk
                                                after the public comment period and our                 which operate across different time                   in the foreseeable future (see description
                                                final determination on the petition to                  scales, the foreseeable future is not                 of ‘‘High Risk’’ below). A species may be
                                                list these six foreign marine                           necessarily reducible to a particular                 at moderate risk of extinction due to its
                                                elasmobranchs under the ESA. The                        number of years.                                      present demographics (i.e., declining
                                                status of the findings and relevant                        Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us             trends in abundance/population growth,
                                                Federal Register notices for the other 18               to determine whether any species is                   spatial structure and connectivity, and/
                                                species and 3 subpopulations can be                     endangered or threatened due to any                   or diversity and resilience) and/or
                                                found on our Web site at http://                        one or a combination of the following                 projected threats and its likely response
                                                www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/                           five factors: The present or threatened               to those threats. ‘‘High Risk’’—a species
                                                petition81.htm.                                         destruction, modification, or                         is at high risk of extinction when it is
                                                                                                        curtailment of its habitat or range;                  at or near a level of abundance, spatial
                                                Listing Species Under the Endangered                    overutilization for commercial,                       structure and connectivity, and/or
                                                Species Act                                             recreational, scientific, or educational              diversity that place its persistence in
                                                   We are responsible for determining                   purposes; disease or predation; the                   question. The demographics of the
                                                whether species are threatened or                       inadequacy of existing regulatory                     species may be strongly influenced by
                                                endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C.                     mechanisms; or other natural or                       stochastic or depensatory processes.
                                                1531 et seq.). To make this                             manmade factors affecting its continued               Similarly, a species may be at high risk
                                                determination, we first consider                        existence. We are also required to make               of extinction if it faces clear and present
                                                whether a group of organisms                            listing determinations based solely on                threats (e.g., confinement to a small
                                                constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA,                the best scientific and commercial data               geographic area; imminent destruction,
                                                then whether the status of the species                  available, after conducting a review of               modification, or curtailment of its
                                                qualifies it for listing as either                      the species’ status and after taking into             habitat; or disease epidemic) that are
                                                threatened or endangered. Section 3 of                  account efforts being made by any State               likely to create such imminent
                                                the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ to include                or foreign nation to protect the species.             demographic risks.
                                                ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or                    In making a listing determination, we                 After completion of the extinction risk
                                                plants, and any distinct population                     first determine whether a petitioned                  analysis, we then assess efforts being
                                                segment of any species of vertebrate fish               species meets the ESA definition of a                 made to protect the species to determine
                                                or wildlife which interbreeds when                      ‘‘species.’’ Next, using the best available           if these conservation efforts are
                                                mature.’’                                               information gathered during the status                adequate to mitigate the existing threats.
                                                   Section 3 of the ESA defines an                      review for the species, we assess the                 Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires
                                                endangered species as ‘‘any species                     extinction risk of the species. In our                the Secretary, when making a listing
                                                which is in danger of extinction                        extinction risk assessment, we                        determination for a species, to take into
                                                throughout all or a significant portion of              considered the best available                         consideration those efforts, if any, being
                                                its range’’ and a threatened species as                 information to evaluate the level of risk             made by any State or foreign nation to
                                                one ‘‘which is likely to become an                      faced by each of the six species. For                 protect the species. Finally, taking into
                                                endangered species within the                           each extinction risk analysis, we                     account the species’ extinction risk,
                                                foreseeable future throughout all or a                  evaluated the species’ demographic                    threats, and any protective efforts
                                                significant portion of its range.’’ We                  risks, such as low abundance and                      identified from the above assessment,
                                                interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be               productivity, and threats to the species              we determine if the species meets the
                                                one that is presently in danger of                      including those related to the factors                definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or
                                                extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on                specified by the ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–              ‘‘threatened species.’’
                                                the other hand, is not presently in                     (E), and then synthesized this
                                                danger of extinction, but is likely to                  information to estimate the extinction                Summary of Comments
                                                become so in the foreseeable future (that               risk of each species.                                    In response to our request for public
                                                is, at a later time). In other words, the                  Because species-specific information               comments on the proposed rule, we
                                                primary statutory difference between a                  (such as current abundance) is sparse,                received information and/or comments
                                                threatened and endangered species is                    qualitative ‘‘reference levels’’ of risk              from three parties. One commenter
                                                the timing of when a species may be in                  were used to describe extinction risk.                agreed with the listing and provided no
                                                danger of extinction, either presently                  The definitions of the qualitative                    new or substantive data or information
                                                (endangered) or in the foreseeable future               ‘‘reference levels’’ of extinction risk—              relevant to the listing of these six
                                                (threatened).                                           ‘‘Low Risk,’’ ‘‘Moderate Risk,’’ and                  species. We also directly solicited
                                                   When we consider whether a species                   ‘‘High Risk’’—were as described here. A               comments from the foreign ambassadors
                                                might qualify as threatened under the                   species is at ‘‘Low Risk’’ of extinction if           of countries where the six elasmobranch
                                                ESA, we must consider the meaning of                    it exhibits a trajectory indicating that it           species occur and received a response
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is                  is unlikely to be at a moderate level of              from the Embassy of the Argentine
                                                appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable                  extinction risk in the foreseeable future             Republic. Summaries of the substantive
                                                future’’ as the horizon over which                      (see description of ‘‘Moderate Risk’’                 comments received from both the public
                                                predictions about the conservation                      below). A species may be at low risk of               comment period and the Embassy of the
                                                status of the species can be reasonably                 extinction due to its present                         Argentine Republic, and our responses,
                                                relied upon. The foreseeable future                     demographics (i.e., stable or increasing              are provided below by topic and
                                                considers the life history of the species,              trends in abundance/population growth,                species.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00047   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21724             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                Comments on ESA Section 4(a)(1)                         waters. The commenter also cited                      the species throughout Suriname,
                                                Factors                                                 Willems et al. (2015) as evidence that                Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago.
                                                                                                        daggernose sharks may have been                       However, the species is mobile (as
                                                Present or Threatened Destruction,
                                                                                                        extirpated from the waters of Guyana as               demonstrated by its seasonal
                                                Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat
                                                                                                        well, resulting in a significant combined             migrations), and while it is uncertain
                                                or Range                                                range contraction. The commenter noted                whether local populations have been
                                                Daggernose Shark                                        that this may be indicative of additional             fished to extirpation, there is no
                                                   Comment 1: One commenter noted                       extirpations as Guyana does not                       information to indicate that the species
                                                that we should look more closely at the                 represent the northernmost extreme of                 presently suffers from a curtailment of
                                                threat of habitat loss for the daggernose               the species’ range. Citing Willems et al.             its range.
                                                shark, and, in particular, increasing                   (2015), the commenter stated that
                                                                                                                                                              Brazilian Guitarfish
                                                threats to mangrove habitat as a result                 daggernose sharks were caught off
                                                                                                        Guyana in the 1960s but were not                         Comment 3: One commenter
                                                of rising sea levels due to climate                                                                           disagreed with our conclusion that
                                                                                                        observed in a 2015 study, indicating
                                                change, increasing human populations                                                                          habitat destruction or modification is
                                                                                                        that they may no longer be present
                                                in coastal areas, and increasing                                                                              not an operative threat to the Brazilian
                                                                                                        there, or that they have at least been
                                                mariculture activities near mangroves.                                                                        guitarfish, and suggested we consider
                                                                                                        reduced to the point of rarity. The
                                                The commenter suggested that we                                                                               the impacts of trawling activities on
                                                                                                        commenter asserted that such range
                                                consider the extent to which these                                                                            Brazilian guitarfish habitat. The
                                                                                                        contractions are concerning and may
                                                threats may harm the species, both now                                                                        commenter pointed out a peer reviewer
                                                                                                        indicate that additional range
                                                and in the foreseeable future, and the                                                                        comment on the status review
                                                                                                        contractions have happened in the other
                                                extent to which this threat is, or may                                                                        (Casselberry and Carlson 2015b) that
                                                                                                        range countries of the daggernose shark
                                                become, operative in portions of the                    where information is lacking.                         said ‘‘[i]n this document is cited that
                                                species’ range, even if this threat has                    Response: Neither of the papers cited              there is no specific information
                                                been neutralized to some degree in other                by the commenter (Barreto et al. 2015 or              available on how trawling has affected
                                                parts of the species’ range.                            Willems et al. 2015) provided any new                 the Brazilian guitarfish’s habitat.
                                                   Response: As noted in the proposed                   information on the distribution or                    However, knowing that they feed
                                                rule (80 FR 76068; December 7, 2015),                   extinction risk of the daggernose shark.              mainly on benthic community, we can
                                                we considered the information in the                    Barreto et al. (2015) referenced the                  assume the trawling may affect the food
                                                status review report (Casselberry and                   Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação               chain in which R. horkelii is inserted.’’
                                                Carlson 2015a), information submitted                   da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) assessment                 The commenter asserted that the peer
                                                by the public, as well as information we                of daggernose shark (ICMBio 2014) as                  reviewer made an important common
                                                compiled separately to assess the                       support for its statement that the species            sense point that applies to all species
                                                extinction risk of the daggernose shark.                may be close to extirpation in Brazil.                that rely on benthic habitats that are
                                                While the status review presented data                  This assessment did not provide any                   damaged by trawling, and that this type
                                                on mangrove forest declines, we did not                 information regarding evidence of a                   of damage to the species’ habitat will
                                                find evidence that this was a significant               range contraction for the species, nor                inevitably harm the species. The
                                                threat to the species. As noted in the                  did it provide new information that was               commenter suggested we consider this
                                                status review, daggernose sharks are                    not already reviewed, considered, or                  damage as an additional source of harm
                                                found in shallow waters along                           cited in the proposed rule. The other                 to the species, despite the fact that it
                                                mangrove-lined coasts, but their                        paper, Willems et al. (2015), describes a             may be difficult to quantify. The
                                                reliance specifically on the presence of                study where researchers conducted                     commenter then noted that this benthic
                                                mangroves within these areas is                         monthly trawl sampling of 15 locations                habitat threats discussion applies to all
                                                unknown. Rather, the status review                      off the coast of Suriname from February               species that are reliant on benthic
                                                notes that daggernose sharks are most                   2012—April 2013 to characterize the                   habitats that are, or may be, impacted by
                                                abundant in estuarine and river mouth                   demersal fish fauna on the inner                      trawlers, including the striped
                                                areas, preferring low lying and indented                continental shelf. The authors noted                  smoothhound shark, narrownose
                                                coastlines, and are strongly associated                 that daggernose sharks were not                       smoothhound shark, Argentine
                                                with rocky or muddy bottoms and                         observed in the samples but had                       angelshark and spiny angelshark.
                                                highly turbid waters. There is no                       previously been caught off Guyana in                     Response: While trawling activities
                                                indication that mangroves are an                        the 1960s, and hypothesized that fishing              affect the benthic community and may
                                                integral feature of the species’ habitat or             activity may have led to local                        potentially affect the food chain for R.
                                                that the species has an obligate                        extirpations, presumably off Suriname                 horkelii and the other elasmobranch
                                                relationship with mangroves. As such,                   (where the study took place). There was               benthic feeders, we have no information
                                                we do not find that available                           no data or information in the Willems                 to indicate that this is presently or
                                                information indicates that the decline in               et al. (2015) study to indicate that                  historically the case, or contributing to
                                                mangrove forests in portions of the                     daggernose sharks are no longer present               the extinction risk of any of the species.
                                                species’ range is a threat that                         off Guyana.                                           Additionally, we note that broad or
                                                significantly contributes to the species’                  We acknowledge that overutilization                general information, or the
                                                risk of extinction.                                     is the primary threat to the daggernose               identification of factors that could
                                                   Comment 2: One commenter stated                      shark, contributing to its present high               negatively impact a species, do not
                                                that it is likely that there has been a                 risk of extinction; however, we do not                indicate that listing is necessarily
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                large range contraction for some of the                 find that the information provided by                 warranted. We look for information
                                                proposed shark species. The commenter                   the commenter indicates that the                      indicating that not only is the particular
                                                noted that, based on Barreto et al. (2015)              species is also at risk of a significant              species exposed to a factor, but that the
                                                (which has now been published as                        range contraction. Overall, there is a                species is responding to or reasonably
                                                Barreto et al. 2016), several shark                     severe lack of information on the                     likely to respond to that factor in a
                                                species, including the daggernose shark,                species’ historical and current                       negative fashion; then we assess the
                                                may be close to extinction in Brazilian                 distribution, with only scarce records of             potential significance of that negative


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00048   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                           21725

                                                response. While we reviewed and                         concentrations of environmental                       for the narrownose smoothhound and
                                                considered the information from the                     pollutants in the tissues of narrownose               spiny angelshark, which can be found
                                                status review and information collected                 smoothhound sharks are threats                        below in the sections Summary of
                                                prior to the proposed rule on habitat                   significantly contributing to the species’            Factors Affecting the Six Species and
                                                destruction or modification as a                        risk of extinction throughout its range,              Extinction Risk.
                                                potential threat, we found no                           now or in the foreseeable future.
                                                information to indicate that this factor is                                                                   Daggernose Shark
                                                                                                        Overutilization for Commercial,
                                                contributing significantly to the species’                                                                       Comment 6: One commenter,
                                                risk of extinction. Additionally, neither               Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
                                                                                                                                                              referencing Barreto et al. (2015), stated
                                                the information provided by the                         Purposes
                                                                                                                                                              that monitoring of fishing in countries,
                                                commenter, nor information in our files,                General Comments Applicable to                        including Brazil, has been inconsistent.
                                                indicates that trawling has altered the                 Multiple Species                                      The commenter provides the following
                                                benthic habitat in such a way that it is                   Comment 5: One commenter provided                  quote from Barreto et al. (2015):
                                                leading to declines in food resources for               general information on the threat of                  ‘‘Nowadays, there are 750 longliners
                                                the Brazilian guitarfish or any of the                  overfishing of sharks and rays                        with permission to catch specifically P.
                                                other species considered in this final                  worldwide. Citing an analysis by                      glauca, I. oxyrhinchus and C. falciformis
                                                rule. As such, our conclusion that the                  Davidson et al. (2015), the commenter                 in Brazilian waters. For comparison, in
                                                information does not indicate that                      noted that global landings of sharks and              our database, over more than 30 years,
                                                habitat destruction or modification is an                                                                     about 200 vessels reported data.’’ The
                                                                                                        rays have declined by approximately 20
                                                operative threat on these species                                                                             commenter asserts that this information
                                                                                                        percent, which the authors attribute to
                                                remains the same.                                                                                             indicates a large increase over historical
                                                                                                        population declines rather than fishery
                                                Narrownose Smoothhound Shark                            management measures. The commenter                    numbers in vessels with permission to
                                                                                                        also specifically highlighted the                     catch daggernose sharks.
                                                   Comment 4: One commenter noted
                                                                                                        increase in landings by Argentina (5–10                  Response: The commenter provides a
                                                that narrownose smoothhounds have
                                                                                                        percent) and Brazil (1–5 percent) from                footnote to their statement that the
                                                exhibited elevated levels of mercury and
                                                                                                        2003 to 2011, and the failure of these                reference to I. oxyrhinchus in the
                                                cadmium in their tissue and cited to the
                                                                                                        countries to meet all of the sustainable              Barreto et al. (2015) quote could be
                                                status review for the species
                                                                                                        fishing objectives set out in their                   referring to the daggernose shark
                                                (Casselberry and Carlson 2015c). The
                                                                                                        respective Food and Agriculture                       (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus) or the
                                                commenter asserted that these trace
                                                metals bioaccumulate up the food chain                  Organization of the United Nations                    shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus),
                                                from pollutant sources in the species’                  (FAO) National Plans of Action for the                as the spelling used was not consistent
                                                habitat and can cause a variety of harm                 conservation of sharks (hereafter                     with either species’ Latin name.
                                                to higher trophic level species, like the               referred to as FAO NPOA-sharks) as                    However, we disagree with the
                                                narrownose smoothhound, and                             evidence that current regulatory                      commenter and note that given Barreto
                                                provided Gelsleichter and Walker (2010)                 mechanisms in these range states are                  et al.’s (2015) discussion and use of I.
                                                as a reference. The commenter                           inadequate and that overfishing will                  oxyrhinchus throughout their paper as
                                                concluded that the presence of these                    continue to cause the proposed species                referring to the shortfin mako shark, the
                                                pollutants in the narrownose                            to decline further.                                   quote is clearly referencing the number
                                                smoothhound’s habitat, and their                           Response: We reviewed the Davidson                 of longliners that are permitted to catch
                                                resultant bioaccumulation and                           et al. (2015) paper and found that while              blue sharks, shortfin mako sharks, and
                                                biomagnification in the species, is an                  it gives a broad overview of the trend in             silky sharks in Brazilian waters.
                                                additional habitat-related threat to the                global shark landings, and suggests that                 In the footnote, the commenter
                                                species’ continued existence.                           overfishing, rather than improved                     additionally provides a Web site link to
                                                   Response: As the status review                       management, explains the global                       indicate that some Brazilian fishing
                                                (Casselberry and Carlson 2015c) notes,                  declines observed in shark and ray                    licenses specifically allow for catch of
                                                the study that found elevated levels of                 landings since 2003, it does not provide              daggernose sharks (http://
                                                mercury and cadmium in narrownose                       any new or substantive species-specific               sinpesq.mpa.gov.br/rgp-publico/web/
                                                smoothhound shark tissues in Argentina                  information. In assessing threats, we                 index.php/frota/detalhe/num_frota/
                                                (Marcovecchi et al. 1991) did not                       look for information indicating that not              1.02.001); however, we were unable to
                                                provide any information on the impact                   only is a particular species exposed to               access this Web page to verify the
                                                of these metals on the survival of the                  a factor, but also that the species is                information. We note that the species is
                                                individual sharks. Additionally, we                     responding to or reasonably likely to                 listed in Annex I of Brazil’s endangered
                                                found no information on the impact of                   respond to that factor in a negative                  species list (‘‘Lista de Espécies da Fauna
                                                toxin and metal bioaccumulation                         fashion in order to assess the potential              Brasileira Ameaçadas de Extinção’’),
                                                specifically in narrownose                              significance of that factor to a particular           which prohibits the capture of the
                                                smoothhound populations. In fact, there                 species. We previously considered the                 species except for scientific purposes,
                                                is no information on the lethal                         FAO landings data (upon which the                     and, therefore, fishing licenses allowing
                                                concentration limits of toxins or metals                Davidson et al. (2015) paper is based)                the capture of the species for
                                                in narrownose smoothhound sharks, or                    and examined the management and                       commercial or recreational purposes is
                                                evidence to suggest that current                        adequacy of existing regulatory measure               unlikely. Additionally, as discussed in
                                                concentrations of environmental                         as it relates to each of the proposed                 the proposed rule, the species is most
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                pollutants are causing detrimental                      species’ extinction risks (not just sharks            susceptible to being caught in the
                                                physiological effects to the point where                and rays, in general), with this                      artisanal gillnet fisheries, given their
                                                the species may be at an increased risk                 discussion provided in our proposed                   depth and distribution. As such, the
                                                of extinction. As such, at this time, the               rule. Additionally, based on new                      impact of an overall increase in
                                                best available information does not                     information received since the                        Brazilian longliners does not change our
                                                indicate that the present                               publication of the proposed rule, we                  conclusion regarding the extinction risk
                                                bioaccumulation rates and                               have revised this discussion specifically             of the species.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00049   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21726             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                Striped Smoothhound Shark                               commenter does not provide any new                    likelihood of the species being
                                                   Comment 7: Citing the status review                  information to consider, besides their                discarded (alive or dead) to be very low.
                                                                                                        opinion, in regards to the cause of the                  Comment 10: One commenter
                                                for the striped smoothhound shark
                                                                                                        decline in landings of the species. Based             referenced a study (Fields et al. 2015)
                                                (Casselberry and Carlson 2015d), one
                                                                                                        on a review of the reference provided in              that assessed species composition from
                                                commenter noted that striped
                                                                                                        the comment (i.e., Barreto et al. 2015),              a collection of 72 processed shark fins
                                                smoothhound shark biomass is
                                                                                                        we do not agree with the commenter                    and found that one fin, from a United
                                                concentrated in a very small area of
                                                                                                        that the information provided implies                 States shark fin soup sample, belonged
                                                coastline in southern Rio Grande do Sul
                                                                                                        any trend in fishing effort specific to               to the narrownose smoothhound shark.
                                                (indicating that this is an important
                                                                                                        narrownose smoothhounds in Uruguay.                   The commenter concluded that the
                                                nursery area for the species). The                                                                            findings indicated that not only is the
                                                commenter asserted that the                             We also note that updated data for
                                                                                                        narrownose smoothhound reported to                    species exploited for the shark fin trade,
                                                concentration of the species in this                                                                          but that it is also the subject of
                                                highly limited area of abundance                        the FAO showed an increase in
                                                                                                        Uruguayan reported landings from 194                  international trade, at least some of
                                                appears to be due to the population                                                                           which implicates the United States
                                                declines that the species has already                   t in 2013 to 663 t in 2014. However,
                                                                                                        since publication of the proposed rule,               specifically.
                                                experienced and referenced the decline                                                                           Response: We reviewed the Fields et
                                                in neonate production between 1981                      we have received new data showing
                                                                                                        trends in landings, catch-per-unit-effort             al. (2015) study, and while one shark fin
                                                and 2005 (Casselberry and Carlson                                                                             was genetically identified as M.
                                                2015d). The commenter concluded that                    (CPUE), and biomass of the narrownose
                                                                                                        smoothhound in the Argentine-                         schmitti, we found no other information
                                                this makes the species vulnerable to                                                                          to suggest that the species is actively
                                                population-level effects from impacts                   Uruguayan Common Fishing Zone
                                                                                                        (AUCFZ), and have revised the                         being targeted for the international
                                                occurring in a relatively limited area.                                                                       shark fin trade. Additionally, the
                                                The commenter suggested that we                         discussion concerning the threats to the
                                                                                                        species and its current extinction risk.              authors of the study note that the
                                                consider the extent to which this highly                                                                      samples were ‘‘not collected in a
                                                concentrated area of abundance elevates                 This new discussion can be found
                                                                                                        below in the sections Summary of                      systematic or random manner and thus
                                                the species’ extinction risk.                                                                                 do not provide any information on the
                                                   Response: The commenter provided                     Factors Affecting the Six Species and
                                                                                                        Extinction Risk.                                      overall species composition of the
                                                no new information. We considered the                                                                         trade’’ in the sampling regions.
                                                above information, including the                           Comment 9: One commenter provided
                                                                                                                                                              Although fins of M. schmitti may enter
                                                decline in neonate production, which is                 new information regarding the post-
                                                                                                                                                              international trade, the available data do
                                                discussed in detail in the Historical and               release survivorship of narrownose                    not indicate that this species is a large
                                                Current Distribution and Population                     smoothhound sharks based on a study                   component of the shark fin trade or that
                                                Abundance, Demographic Risk Analysis                    that evaluated the survivorship of                    this utilization of the shark is
                                                and Risk of Extinction sections of the                  elasmobranchs captured by bottom                      significantly contributing to the species’
                                                proposed rule, with the findings                        trawlers (Chiaramonte et al. undated).                extinction risk.
                                                contributing to our assessment of the                   The commenter stated that in addition                    Comment 11: One commenter cited to
                                                species as endangered.                                  to retention of targeted and bycaught                 the FAO capture production statistics
                                                                                                        individuals, this new study provides                  referenced in Davidson et al. (2015) as
                                                Narrownose Smoothhound Shark                            evidence that narrownose                              evidence of the global exploitation and
                                                   Comment 8: One commenter                             smoothhounds respond poorly to                        population decline of the narrownose
                                                disagreed with our characterization of                  capture and likely face very high post-               smoothhound, and noted that the
                                                some information related to                             release mortality when caught by                      species is still heavily fished in Uruguay
                                                overutilization of the narrownose                       bottom trawl gear.                                    and along the Uruguay/Argentina
                                                smoothhound shark in Uruguay. The                          Response: Based on the information                 border. Using Jaureguizar et al. (2014)
                                                commenter asserted that an abundance                    in Chiaramonte et al. (undated), we                   and Ligrone et al. (2014) as support, the
                                                decline of the species is the only                      agree with the commenter that M.                      commenter asserted that the species is
                                                plausible explanation for the large                     schmitti likely has poor survivorship                 still targeted and experiencing heavy
                                                decline in narrownose smoothhound                       after being caught by trawl gear. While               fishing pressure, particularly during its
                                                catch in Uruguay (over 85 percent from                  the post-release survival experiment                  reproductive period, leading the
                                                1999–2013), particularly since there has                was based on only two individuals (both               commenter to conclude that the
                                                not been a decrease in fishing effort. The              dead after 15–30 minutes in a holding                 narrownose smoothhound shark fishery
                                                commenter asserted: ‘‘Where a market                    tank on the trawl vessel), 55 percent of              is highly unsustainable.
                                                for the species still exists, as it does in             the 52 narrownose smoothhounds                           Response: As mentioned in the
                                                neighboring Argentina, fishermen will                   captured were described as being ‘‘not                proposed rule, we also considered the
                                                not simply ignore the species’’ and that                in good condition’’ (i.e., either immobile            landings data reported to the FAO for M.
                                                ‘‘Though effort information does not                    or dead). However, we note that only                  schmitti, noting that landings were on a
                                                exist, the cause of this decline in catch               juveniles were assessed in the study                  declining trend since the mid-2000s,
                                                is clear—it is caused by a                              and, therefore, the survivorship of larger            down to 194 t in 2013; however, due to
                                                corresponding, and likely very large,                   adults in trawl gear remains unknown.                 the absence of effort information, we
                                                decline in narrownose smoothhound                       In terms of the impact on extinction                  noted that the cause of the decline was
                                                population numbers in these waters.’’                   risk, we find that this new information               not entirely clear. For example, from
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                The commenter emphasized that                           does not change our assessment of the                 2002 to 2010, Mustelus spp. catch limits
                                                speculation on an alternative                           species being at a moderate risk of                   were imposed in the AUCFZ, and
                                                explanation for the decrease in landings                extinction. We note that the species is               starting in 2011, catch limits specifically
                                                of narrownose smoothhound shark in                      threatened with overutilization by                    for narrownose smoothhound were
                                                Uruguay is unfounded.                                   commercial and artisanal fisheries, and               established (which could affect landings
                                                   Response: With the exception of the                  because it is commercially sought after               data). The most recent FAO data for
                                                Barreto et al. (2015) study, the                        throughout its range, we consider the                 2014 actually show over a 3-fold


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00050   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                          21727

                                                increase in landings for Uruguay from                   quotas, compounded by pervasive                          Comment 14: One commenter, citing
                                                2013, up to 663 t.                                      inadequate enforcement, render the                    Ligrone et al. (2014), noted that the
                                                   We reviewed the Jaureguizar et al.                   regulatory measures wholly inadequate                 Uruguayan artisanal fleet, which in
                                                (2014) study and found that while it                    to conserve the species.                              2007 recorded a total of 726 vessels for
                                                provides information on the                               Response: The commenters provided                   Rı́o de la Plata Estuary and the Atlantic
                                                composition of small-scale gillnet                      no new information that was not already               coast, operates on a multispecies basis,
                                                fishery catch from two neighboring                      considered in the proposed rule.                      with angelsharks (Squatina spp.) being
                                                fishing communities in Argentina, and                   However, since publication of the                     one of the main species caught,
                                                notes the likely landing of M. schmitti                 proposed rule, we have received new                   representing 11 percent of the catch.
                                                during its spring migration for                         data showing trends in landings, CPUE,                Additionally, the commenter, quoting
                                                reproduction purposes, the study’s main                 and biomass of the narrownose                         Ligrone et al. (2014), stated that the
                                                objective was to examine seasonal                       smoothhound in the AUCFZ, and have                    impacts of these Uruguayan artisanal
                                                fishing effort for different species over               revised the discussion concerning the                 fisheries on the species may be
                                                the course of a single year. We also                    threats to the species and its current                exacerbated as they ‘‘share their main
                                                reviewed the Ligrone et al. (2014) paper,               extinction risk. This new discussion can              targeted species sequentially, and often
                                                which surveyed 21 artisanal fishermen                   be found below in the sections                        spatially’’ with the industrial fisheries.
                                                operating from La Paloma and Cabo                       Summary of Factors Affecting the Six                     Response: We reviewed the Ligrone et
                                                Polonio ports and found that Mustelus                   Species and Extinction Risk.                          al. (2014) paper and note that the
                                                spp. represented 40 percent of the catch.                                                                     authors are not describing the practices
                                                The sharks were caught during shark                     Spiny Angelshark                                      of the 726 vessels mentioned above, but
                                                fishing, which occurred mostly between                     Comment 13: One commenter                          rather are specifically describing the
                                                April and October around the ports of                   suggested that we should consider                     artisanal fisheries operating off the
                                                La Paloma and 12 nautical miles (nmi)                   whether the survey data for S.                        Uruguayan Atlantic coast. According to
                                                from Cabo Polonio port. While these                     guggenheim is recent enough that it still             the authors, 82 artisanal fishing vessels
                                                studies confirm that fishing for                        accurately accounts for the species’                  are registered and fish on a multi-
                                                narrownose smoothhound sharks                           abundance at present, and whether                     species basis, operating between the
                                                occurs, the information from these                      impacts suffered since the conclusion of              coast and 15 nmi offshore. While
                                                studies does not provide an indication                  the survey are taken into account. The                Squatina spp. represented 11 percent of
                                                of the present status of the shark, which               commenter cited Jaureguizar et al.                    the catch, the authors do not provide
                                                could indicate the sustainability of these              (2014) to show that the highest CPUE of               actual catch numbers or trends in effort
                                                artisanal fishing operations.                           S. guggenheim occurs during its                       over multiple years that may provide
                                                   However, we agree with the                                                                                 additional information as to the status of
                                                                                                        reproductive period and claimed that
                                                commenter that overutilization of                                                                             the species. In the proposed rule, we
                                                                                                        this unsustainable practice will increase
                                                narrownose smoothhound is a threat to                                                                         considered the impact of both industrial
                                                                                                        overutilization pressure on the species
                                                the species, and we stated this in the                                                                        and artisanal fisheries on spiny
                                                                                                        and cause very fast declines, even where
                                                proposed rule: ‘‘The primary threat to                                                                        angelsharks, noting that these fisheries
                                                the narrownose smoothhound is                           the species may be relatively numerous.
                                                                                                           Response: The commenter did not                    primarily operate in depths that ‘‘cover
                                                overutilization in commercial and                                                                             the entire depth range of the spiny
                                                artisanal fisheries as the species is                   provide any recent survey data for S.
                                                                                                        guggenheim for us to consider. We                     angelshark’’ (80 FR 76095) and,
                                                intensely fished throughout its entire                                                                        therefore, fish all life stages of the
                                                range, including within its nursery                     reviewed the Jaureguizar et al. (2014)
                                                                                                        study and while it provides information               species (80 FR 76099).
                                                grounds.’’ We considered the available                                                                           However, as noted previously, since
                                                fisheries data as well as the trends in the             on the composition of small-scale gillnet
                                                                                                        fishery catch from two neighboring                    publication of the proposed rule, we
                                                species’ demographic factors to make                                                                          have received new data showing trends
                                                our extinction risk determination and                   fishing communities at the southern
                                                                                                        boundary of the Rı́o de la Plata, we do               in landings, CPUE, and biomass of the
                                                do not find that the information                                                                              spiny angelshark within the AUCFZ that
                                                provided by the commenter changes our                   not find that it makes any
                                                                                                        generalizations as to the CPUE of the                 leads us to conclude that the species is
                                                conclusion. We note that since
                                                                                                        species throughout its range. Rather, it              at a higher risk of extinction than what
                                                publication of the proposed rule, we
                                                                                                        notes that in relation to the other                   was stated in the proposed rule. We
                                                have also received new data showing
                                                                                                        seasonal catch in these fishing                       have subsequently revised the
                                                trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass
                                                                                                        communities, S. guggenheim has the                    discussion concerning threats to the
                                                of the narrownose smoothhound in the
                                                                                                        highest CPUE during the autumn, when                  species and its current extinction risk.
                                                AUCFZ, and have revised the
                                                                                                        the species moves into nearshore waters               This new discussion can be found
                                                discussion concerning the threats to the
                                                                                                        for reproductive purposes.                            below in the sections Summary of
                                                species and its current extinction risk.
                                                                                                           We also note that since publication of             Factors Affecting the Six Species and
                                                This new discussion can be found
                                                                                                        the proposed rule, we have received                   Extinction Risk.
                                                below in the sections Summary of
                                                Factors Affecting the Six Species and                   new data showing trends in landings,                  Disease or Predation
                                                Extinction Risk.                                        CPUE, and biomass of the spiny
                                                   Comment 12: One commenter                            angelshark within the AUCFZ that leads                Narrownose Smoothhound Shark
                                                provided another possible explanation                   us to conclude that the species is at a                 Comment 15: One commenter
                                                for the decline in M. schmitti catches in               higher risk of extinction than what was               disagreed with our conclusion that
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                the AUCFZ since 2010 (besides reduced                   stated in the proposed rule. We have                  neither disease nor predation were
                                                fishing pressure and adherence to catch                 subsequently revised the discussion                   operative threats on the species, and
                                                regulations), suggesting that the total                 concerning threats to the species and its             argued that this determination is
                                                allowable catch quotas were set too high                current extinction risk. This new                     inconsistent with the information
                                                and, therefore, do not actually restrict                discussion can be found below in the                  presented in the status review. The
                                                catch in any meaningful way. The                        sections Summary of Factors Affecting                 commenter pointed to information in
                                                commenter stated that inadequate                        the Six Species and Extinction Risk.                  the status review (Casselberry and


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00051   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21728             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                Carlson 2015c) describing a survey off                  exacerbating the other threats that they              predation of spiny angelsharks by tiger
                                                the coast of Brazil that found four                     are facing.                                           and broadnose sevengill sharks has only
                                                individuals (4.21 percent of the                          Response: We acknowledge that the                   been documented in ‘‘low frequencies,’’
                                                surveyed population) with Hifalomicose                  information from the status review                    suggesting that spiny angelsharks may
                                                (a fungal infection that causes muscle                  confirms that narrownose                              not be a preferred prey item of these
                                                necrosis with hyphal penetration into                   smoothhounds are a prey item of                       species. Without any new information
                                                the cartilage). The commenter quoted                    various shark species, and we                         provided by the commenter, we
                                                from the status review: ‘‘All infected                  considered this information in the                    maintain our previous conclusion in the
                                                individuals displayed necrosis on their                 proposed rule; however, the commenter                 proposed rule that predation is not
                                                snout and an additional infection from                  provided no new information regarding                 likely a significant contributing factor to
                                                the yeast, Fusarium solani. The ulcers                  predation rates of M. schmitti or how                 the species’ extinction risk throughout
                                                from the necrosis turn greenish and                     predation is having negative population-              its range.
                                                result in major bleeding, which leads to                level effects on the species. Thus, the
                                                                                                        statement from the commenter that                     Argentine Angelshark
                                                death. This infection can cause
                                                widespread infestations because the                     predation is causing cumulative and                      Comment 18: Similar to Comments 16
                                                fungus is easily transmitted and has a                  synergistic impacts to the species is                 and 17 above, the same commenter also
                                                fast life cycle.’’ The commenter argued                 speculative. Without any new                          disagreed with our determination that
                                                that this information indicates disease                 information provided by the                           predation is not an operative threat to
                                                as a fairly serious threat to the species,              commenter, we maintain our previous                   the Argentine angelshark, and argued
                                                and urged us to assess this threat when                 conclusion in the proposed rule that                  that our determination is inconsistent
                                                making our final listing determination                  predation is not likely a significant                 with information presented in the status
                                                for the species.                                        contributing factor to the species’                   review for the species. The commenter
                                                   Response: We acknowledge that the                    extinction risk throughout its range.                 pointed to the status review (Casselberry
                                                information in the status review                                                                              and Carlson 2015f), which said: ‘‘studies
                                                                                                        Spiny Angelshark                                      of South American sea lion (Otaria
                                                confirms some incidence of fungal
                                                infection in the narrownose                                Comment 17: The same commenter                     flavescens) diet in Uruguay found that
                                                smoothhound; however, the information                   from Comment 16 also disagreed with                   they consume Argentine angelsharks,
                                                in the status review is based on a single               our determination that predation is not               particularly in Cabo Polonio.’’ The
                                                study with data that is over 20 years old.              an operative threat to the spiny                      commenter contends that although
                                                Additionally, the commenter did not                     angelshark, and argued that our                       predation by a native predator would
                                                provide any new information regarding                   determination is inconsistent with                    typically not cause the extinction of a
                                                how fungal infections are having                        information presented in the status                   prey species under natural conditions,
                                                ongoing negative population-level                       review for the species. The commenter                 Argentine angelshark populations are
                                                effects on the species. Therefore,                      pointed to the status review (Casselberry             already depleted and subjected to
                                                without any new information provided                    and Carlson 2015e), which determined                  additional threats. As a result, any
                                                by the commenter, we maintain our                       that small spiny angelsharks are                      additional mortality will exacerbate the
                                                previous conclusion in the proposed                     infrequently cannibalized by large male               threats that they are already subjected
                                                rule that disease is not likely a                       spiny angelsharks and eaten by sand                   to. The commenter concluded that
                                                significant contributing factor to the                  tiger sharks, copper sharks, and                      predation by this sea lion species is
                                                species’ extinction risk.                               broadnose sevengill sharks. The                       causing cumulative and synergistic
                                                   Comment 16: One commenter                            commenter contends that although                      impacts to Argentine angelsharks that
                                                disagreed with our determination that                   predation by a native predator would                  are exacerbating the other threats that
                                                predation is not an operative threat to                 typically not cause the extinction of a               they are facing.
                                                the narrownose smoothhound, and                         prey species under natural conditions,                   Response: We acknowledge that the
                                                argued that our determination is                        spiny angelshark populations are                      information from the status review
                                                inconsistent with information presented                 already depleted and are subject to                   confirms that Argentine angelsharks are
                                                in the status review for the species. The               additional threats. As a result, any                  a prey item of the South American sea
                                                commenter pointed to the status review                  additional mortality will exacerbate the              lion, and we considered this
                                                (Casselberry and Carlson 2015c), which                  threats that they are already subjected               information in the proposed rule;
                                                determined that narrownose                              to. The commenter concluded that                      however, the commenter provided no
                                                smoothhounds are an important prey                      predation by other shark species is                   new information regarding predation
                                                item for large sharks, including the                    causing cumulative and synergistic                    rates of Argentine angelsharks
                                                broadnose sevengill shark (Notorynchus                  impacts to spiny angelsharks that are                 elsewhere throughout its range or how
                                                cepedianus), the copper shark                           exacerbating the other threats that they              predation is having negative population-
                                                (Carcharhinus brachyurus), and the                      are facing.                                           level effects on the species. Thus, the
                                                sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus).                      Response: We acknowledge that the                  statement from the commenter that
                                                The commenter contends that although                    information from the status review                    predation by South American sea lions
                                                predation by a native predator would                    confirms that spiny angelsharks are a                 is causing cumulative and synergistic
                                                typically not cause the extinction of a                 prey item of various shark species, and               impacts to the species is speculative.
                                                prey species under natural conditions,                  we considered this information in the                 Therefore, based on only one study from
                                                M. schmitti populations are already                     proposed rule; however, the commenter                 the status review (Szteren 2006), which
                                                depleted and are subject to additional                  provided no new information regarding                 found predation of Argentine
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                threats. As a result, any additional                    predation rates of spiny angelsharks or               angelsharks in only one of four study
                                                mortality will exacerbate the threats that              how predation is having negative                      areas in Uruguay (Cabo Polonio), we
                                                they are already subjected to. The                      population-level effects on the species.              maintain our previous conclusion in the
                                                commenter concluded that predation by                   Thus, the statement from the commenter                proposed rule that predation is not
                                                other shark species is causing                          that predation is causing cumulative                  likely a significant contributing factor to
                                                cumulative and synergistic impacts to                   and synergistic impacts to the species is             the species’ extinction risk throughout
                                                narrownose smoothhounds that are                        speculative. The status review notes that             its range.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00052   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                        21729

                                                Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory                       the FAO NPOA-sharks, including                        surveys conducted since 2006 that they
                                                Mechanisms                                              Squatina spp. and M. schmitti.                        assert was not considered in the
                                                                                                        However, it was noted that no progress                proposed rule.
                                                General Comments Applicable to                                                                                   Response: We note that the TAG
                                                                                                        has been made on this action, but that
                                                Multiple Species                                                                                              considers the available data, including
                                                                                                        a plan to figure out the allocation of
                                                   Comment 19: One commenter                            funds for this action was suggested in                the referenced research surveys, when it
                                                asserted that the references to                         2016.                                                 develops stock assessment models and
                                                Argentina’s FAO NPOA-sharks was only                       Comment 20: One commenter                          provides advice to the CTMFM. At the
                                                mentioned tangentially and                              provided a list of research surveys from              time of the proposed rule, we did not
                                                incompletely. The commenter asserts                     which the results were used to evaluate               have access to the latest documents
                                                that the results of the plan are published              the closure areas that have been                      from the TAG or CTMFM (or the results
                                                and communicated to the relevant                        established for M. schmitti and S.                    from the referenced research surveys).
                                                multilateral FAO forums who are                         guggenheim in waters of Argentina and                 However, since publication of the
                                                satisfied with the achievements thus far.               the AUCFZ. Additionally, the                          proposed rule, we have received new
                                                In terms of monitoring and                              commenter provided a list of                          data from the CTMFM, including recent
                                                implementation of the FAO NPOA-                         Argentina’s regulations pertinent to                  TAG reports and stock assessment
                                                sharks, the commenter noted that the                    fisheries operating in the ‘‘El Rincón’’             models that show trends in landings,
                                                Technical Advisory Group (TAG),                         area as well as regulations pertaining to             CPUE, and biomass of the narrownose
                                                which monitors and reviews the plan,                    recreational fishermen.                               smoothhound and spiny angelshark in
                                                filed a proposed update, which was                         Response: In terms of the list of                  the AUCFZ, and have revised the
                                                approved by the Federal Fisheries                       research surveys, we were not provided                discussion concerning the threats to
                                                Council, the body responsible for the                   the actual data or results from these                 these species and their current
                                                establishment of the national fisheries                 surveys (only the year of the survey,                 extinction risk. This new discussion can
                                                policy in Argentina.                                    type, area of operation, season, month,               be found below in the sections
                                                   Response: We have reviewed the most                  and number of sets were provided) and,                Summary of Factors Affecting the Six
                                                recent documents related to Argentina’s                 thus, we could not evaluate the                       Species and Extinction Risk.
                                                FAO NPOA-sharks mentioned by the                        relevance of these surveys to informing                  Comment 22: One commenter stated
                                                commenter. The update to the FAO                        our determination of the status of either             that the proposed rule did not consider
                                                NPOA-sharks was approved in 2015                        the narrownose smoothhound or spiny                   the CTMFM Resolution No. 10/2000,
                                                (ACTA CF No. 42/2015) and specifically                  angelshark. While we acknowledge that                 which prohibits vessels over 28 meters
                                                revised the objectives and actions set                  Argentina is actively working on the                  (m) in length from operating in the
                                                forth in Chapter IV of the 2009 plan. We                implementation of its FAO NPOA-                       coastal area to the isobath 50 m deep
                                                also reviewed the proceedings from the                  sharks, and currently regulates its                   within the AUCFZ. The commenter
                                                TAG workshop held to review and                         fisheries through a number of                         asserted that this resolution has had a
                                                update the FAO NPOA-sharks (TAG                         management measures, including                        positive impact on reducing fishing
                                                2015), and while it provided progress on                closure areas to protect                              effort for the proposed species in the
                                                the actions and goals outlined in                       chondrichthyans, the adequacy of these                AUCFZ.
                                                Argentina’s FAO NPOA-sharks, it did                     measures in controlling the threat of                    Response: While we agree that this
                                                not provide any information specific to                 overutilization to the proposed species               prohibition has likely reduced fishing
                                                informing the status of any of the                      is still uncertain. It is not clear, from the         effort on the species within the AUCFZ
                                                proposed species, or evidence of the                    information provided by the                           somewhat, the extent of the reduction
                                                adequacy of these actions in protecting                 commenter, if these regulations have                  largely depends on the species. For
                                                these species. In one section of the                    improved the status of any of the                     example, this prohibition would have
                                                report, it documents the number of M.                   proposed species. Based on the best                   no effect on fishing effort for S.
                                                schmitti and angelshark individuals                     available information for the species                 argentina, whose depth ranges from 100
                                                found at two ports during sampling by                   found in Argentinean waters, including                m to 400 m. For S. guggenheim, Hozbor
                                                El Instituto Nacional de Investigación y               population data, demographic risks, and               and Pérez (2016) note that the fleet
                                                Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP) from                       current exploitation rates, it appears                comprised of boats 18–25 m in length,
                                                2013–2015; however, without additional                  that they face either moderate or high                which would not fall under this
                                                information on sampling design or                       risks of extinction. Further discussion of            prohibition, mostly operate in the depth
                                                methods, we have no way of                              the data informing this extinction risk               stratum where S. guggenheim would
                                                interpreting the results. Based on the                  analysis can be found in the proposed                 occur, and were responsible for over 50
                                                proposed goals and actions, and                         rule as well as the Summary of Factors                percent of the landings of the species
                                                progress towards these goals, it is clear               Affecting the Six Species and Extinction              from 2000–2015. The narrownose
                                                that gaps in knowledge about many of                    Risk sections of this final determination.            smoothhound shark, M. schmitti, is
                                                the chondrichthyan species in                              Comment 21: One commenter stated                   found in up to 120 m depths in
                                                Argentine waters exist, but that these                  that total permitted catches in Argentine             Argentina, and, therefore, may still be
                                                gaps will hopefully be filled in the                    waters and the AUCFZ are set both                     subject to fishery-related mortality by
                                                foreseeable future. However, at this                    nationally and within the framework of                these larger vessels. Based on new
                                                time, this information does not change                  the Comisión Técnica Mixta del Frente               information received since publication
                                                our conclusions regarding the status of                 Marı́timo (CTMFM), respectively. The                  of the proposed rule on the trends in
                                                any of the proposed species. In fact, the               commenter further noted that catch                    landings, CPUE, and biomass of
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                workshop report notes that one of the                   limits are based on the advice from the               narrownose smoothhounds and spiny
                                                actions in the FAO NPOA-sharks is to                    TAG, which uses information from                      angelsharks in the AUCFZ, and the
                                                establish criteria to categorize the                    research surveys and fishery statistics to            adequacy of existing regulatory
                                                conservation status of the different                    develop stock assessment models and                   measures, we have since re-evaluated
                                                species of chondrichthyans in the                       propose management options using a                    the extinction risk of both species (see
                                                Argentine Sea, with the first application               precautionary approach. The                           sections Summary of Factors Affecting
                                                of this to the priority species listed in               commenter references a list of research               the Six Species and Extinction Risk).


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00053   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21730             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                Based on the results, we do not find that               overfishing in this country has the                   to be inadequate until conservation is
                                                the above prohibition has likely reduced                ability to extirpate other populations as             prioritized as a political matter and the
                                                mortality on either of these species to                 well.                                                 protections in Argentina’s FAO NPOA-
                                                the point where they would not warrant                     Response: We agree with the                        sharks are strengthened.
                                                listing under the ESA.                                  commenter that overutilization and                       Response: We thank the commenter
                                                   Comment 23: One commenter noted                      inadequate existing regulatory measures               for the comment and note that a
                                                that the Argentine industrial fleet                     are threats to the proposed species                   thorough discussion and analysis of the
                                                operates satellite monitoring systems                   within Brazilian waters. These threats                adequacy of existing regulatory
                                                that report the position of each vessel                 have been thoroughly considered and                   measures in Argentina and the other
                                                every hour. The commenter elaborated                    discussed in the proposed rule and have               portions of the proposed species’ range
                                                that the global positioning information                 led to our listing determinations. We                 can be found in the proposed rule as
                                                of the fleet is published on the Web site               reviewed the papers mentioned by the                  well as in the Summary of Factors
                                                of the Ministry and is updated every 12                 commenter and find that these papers                  Affecting the Six Species and Extinction
                                                hours, demonstrating absolute                           do not present new information specific               Risk sections of this final rule.
                                                transparency and also the effective                     to any of the proposed species that was                  Comment 27: One commenter
                                                control of closed areas. Additionally,                  not already considered or would change                disagreed with the statement from the
                                                the commenter notes that this                           our prior conclusions regarding threats               proposed rule (80 FR 76091; December
                                                information is integrated in a way that                 to these species.                                     7, 2015) that cited McCormack et al.
                                                allows the issuance of legal catch                         Comment 25: One commenter agreed                   (2007) as evidence that total allowable
                                                documents, which are requested by                       with our evaluation of the adequacy of                catch limits, minimum sizes, and
                                                exporters to be presented to customs                    existing regulatory measures in                       annual quotas for elasmobranchs are
                                                authorities.                                            Uruguay. The commenter, citing Barreto                largely ignored and poorly enforced in
                                                   Response: While we thank the                         et al. (2015), stated that there is a                 Argentina. The commenter stated that in
                                                commenter for this information, we do                   general scarcity of fishing statistics from           Argentina, there has been progress in
                                                not find that it changes our conclusions                Uruguay and that the lack of                          the last 15 years in the study of these
                                                regarding the threats to the proposed                   information and effective regulation in               species, in optimizing data collection,
                                                species, or their respective overall risks              the face of exploitation has caused                   and in personnel training to conduct
                                                of extinction.                                          elasmobranchs to decline in Uruguayan                 research, but also for the control and
                                                   Comment 24: One commenter, citing                    waters. The commenter asserted that                   monitoring of landings and adherence to
                                                Bornatowski et al. (2014), Barreto et al.               protections for the proposed species in               management measures. The commenter
                                                (2015), Amaral and Jablonski (2005),                    Uruguay are likely to be inadequate                   stated these efforts have increased since
                                                and Ricardo-Pezzuto and Mastella-                       until conservation is prioritized as a                the implementation of Argentina’s FAO
                                                Beninca (2015), asserted Brazilian                      political matter and the protections in               NPOA-sharks in 2009. The commenter
                                                regulatory measures are inadequate to                   Uruguay’s FAO NPOA-sharks are                         also noted that total allowable catches
                                                protect any of the proposed species.                    strengthened. The commenter                           (TACs) in Argentina are not theoretical
                                                Specifically, the commenter states that                 concluded that all of the proposed shark              but established by the authorities on the
                                                monitoring of both commercial and                       species that are present in Uruguayan                 basis of the best scientific advice and
                                                artisanal fisheries in Brazilian waters is              waters are thus threatened by                         are monitored and enforced by
                                                insufficient due to a lack of monitoring                inadequate regulatory measures.                       authorities of Argentina and the
                                                capacity and data. Furthermore, the                        Response: We thank the commenter                   CTMFM.
                                                commenter asserted that instead of                      for the comment and note that a                          Response: While we agree with the
                                                making serious efforts to improve                       thorough discussion and analysis of the               commenter that efforts to conserve
                                                protections for sharks and decrease                     adequacy of existing regulatory                       sharks have increased in Argentina
                                                overfishing, Brazil has taken several                   measures in Uruguay and the other                     since 2009, and find that the
                                                actions that will have the opposite                     portions of the proposed species’ ranges              information provided by the commenter
                                                effects, including ending its observer                  can be found in the proposed rule as                  suggest current management measures
                                                program and creating favorable                          well as in the Summary of Factors                     are enforced by authorities of Argentina
                                                conditions to allow fishing fleets to                   Affecting the Six Species and Extinction              and the CTMFM, we note that the
                                                expand in the area. The commenter                       Risk sections of this final rule.                     existing regulatory measures, including
                                                claims that protected areas are                            Comment 26: The same commenter                     TACs, may not be adequate to prevent
                                                insufficient in number and extent, and                  from Comment 25 agreed with our                       further declines in the the proposed
                                                that management plans have not been                     evaluation of the inadequacy of                       species. Based on new information
                                                implemented or are lacking altogether                   Argentina’s existing regulatory                       received since publication of the
                                                for some of these areas, with attempts at               measures, asserting that Argentina’s                  proposed rule, including data showing
                                                shark protections met with strong                       catch records are inaccurate and that                 trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass
                                                opposition from the fishing industry.                   any regulatory mechanisms based on                    of narrownose smoothhounds and spiny
                                                Additionally, the commenter mentioned                   those figures are therefore unreliable.               angelsharks in the AUCFZ, as well as
                                                that trawling licenses in Brazil allow                  The commenter cited a study done by                   information regarding TACs for these
                                                their holders to catch and retain dozens                Villasante et al. (2015), which                       species and the adequacy of existing
                                                of species, both target and non-target,                 reconstructed total marine fisheries                  regulatory measures, we have since re-
                                                with the fleets authorized to catch many                removals in Argentina’s Exclusive                     evaluated the extinction risk of both
                                                species that are not in their licenses.                 Economic Zone from 1950–2010 to                       species. This discussion can be found in
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                Citing the narrownose smoothhound                       provide estimates of unreported                       the sections Summary of Factors
                                                status review (Casselberry and Carlson                  components of fisheries catch in various              Affecting the Six Species and Extinction
                                                2015c), the commenter noted that at                     sectors. Villasante et al. (2015) found               Risk below.
                                                least one population of narrownose                      that reconstructed catch was 55 percent                  Comment 28: One commenter
                                                smoothhounds may have been                              higher than FAO reported landings. The                asserted that another major regulation
                                                extirpated in Brazil as a result of                     commenter asserted protections for the                that was not considered in the proposed
                                                overfishing and concluded that                          proposed species in Argentina are likely              rule was the implementation of a


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00054   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                           21731

                                                maximum allowance of landed                                Comment 30: One commenter                             Comment 32: One commenter stated
                                                chondrichthyes per fishing trip in                      asserted that Argentinean and                         that we did not include the ‘‘best
                                                Argentina. The commenter noted that                     Uruguayan fishing authorities are not                 available information’’ in relation to the
                                                presently, the CTMFM (Resolution 09/                    serious about protecting angelsharks.                 status of M. schmitti. The commenter
                                                2013) and the Federal Fisheries Council                 The commenter pointed to the practice                 recommended that we check the
                                                of Argentina have implemented                           of setting catch limits by the CTMFM.                 CTMFM Web site for recent
                                                regulations that state that landings of                 Specifically, the commenter noted that                information, including stock
                                                rays and sharks may not be more than                    the CTMFM set a catch limit of 2,600                  assessments and regulatory measures,
                                                30 percent of the total landings per trip.              tons in 2012 for Squatina spp. within                 related to the status of this species.
                                                The landings of chondrichthyes may not                  the AUCFZ. This catch limit was met,                     Response: Prior to publication of the
                                                be more than 50 percent of the total                    and in response to this, an additional                proposed rule, we considered the
                                                landings per trip. The commenter                        reserve of 400 tons was proposed in                   publicly available information from the
                                                referenced a paper by Monsalvo et al.                   2013 in the event that the 2,600-ton                  CTMFM Web site when we evaluated
                                                (2016) to indicate an adherence to this                 limit was reached again. The commenter                the status of M. schmitti. We have since
                                                regulation by the Argentine fleet and                   noted that this was followed by a 10                  been in correspondence with the
                                                asserted that the implementation of the                 percent increase that could be added to               CTMFM and received new data showing
                                                management action, together with other                  the 2,600-ton limit if the limit was                  trends in landings, CPUE, and biomass
                                                chondrichthyan-specific regulations                     reached in 2014 and 2015. The                         of the narrownose smoothhound and
                                                (including bans and TACs), have                         commenter asserted that this                          have revised the discussion concerning
                                                reduced fishing pressure on M. schmitti                 malleability of the catch limit begs the              the threats to this species and its current
                                                and S. guggenheim. The commenter                        question of why have a limit at all if the            extinction risk. This new discussion can
                                                concluded that it is wrong to assume                    government’s response is to raise the                 be found below in the sections
                                                that the decline in catches of these two                limit once it is reached.                             Summary of Factors Affecting the Six
                                                species unfailingly indicates a decrease                   Response: We note that the                         Species and Extinction Risk.
                                                in abundance, but rather is due to the                  commenter provides only opinion                       Striped Smoothhound
                                                implementation of stringent                             regarding the effectiveness of the
                                                management measures that were                                                                                    Comment 33: One commenter, citing
                                                                                                        CTMFM catch limits on the status of the               Tinidade-Santos and Freire (2015),
                                                established with the explicit aim of                    species. Since publication of the
                                                reducing catches through reduction of                                                                         stated that Brazilian fisheries managers
                                                                                                        proposed rule, we have received new                   rely, in part, on minimum landing sizes
                                                effort directed on these species.                       information on the adequacy and
                                                   Response: As mentioned previously,                                                                         based on fishes’ sizes at first maturity
                                                                                                        effectiveness of the CTMFM imposed                    for managing fisheries, and that
                                                based on new data we received since
                                                                                                        catch limits for M. schmitti and S.                   minimum landing size is the only
                                                publication of the proposed rule that
                                                                                                        guggenheim and have re-evaluated the                  fishery control used for 48 species in
                                                shows trends in landings, CPUE, and
                                                                                                        extinction risks of these two species.                Brazil. The commenter quoted a section
                                                biomass of the narrownose
                                                                                                        This discussion can be found in the                   from Tinidade-Santos and Freire (2015),
                                                smoothhound and spiny angelshark in
                                                                                                        sections Summary of Factors Affecting                 which noted that the current minimum
                                                the AUCFZ, we have re-evaluated our
                                                                                                        the Six Species and Extinction Risk                   landing size for M. fasciatus in Brazil
                                                extinction risk analyses for these two
                                                                                                        below.                                                would not allow it to reproduce at least
                                                species. We note that the models upon
                                                which the new information is based                      Narrownose Smoothhound Shark                          once in its lifetime. The commenter
                                                took into account the impacts of                                                                              states that removing individuals before
                                                management measures, including                            Comment 31: One commenter                           they have reproduced risks imminent
                                                Resolution 09/2013, in estimating                       mentioned a tagging mark-recapture                    population collapse and that Brazil’s
                                                biomass and abundance trends (see                       program for narrownose smoothound                     failure to adequately limit catch of
                                                Cortés et al. 2016a and 2016b). Based on               sharks, which was carried out jointly                 immature individuals is another threat
                                                this new information, we agree with the                 with artisanal fishermen in the southern              to the elasmobranchs in its waters.
                                                commenter that management measures                      region of the Province of Buenos Aires.                  Response: We agree that fishing for M.
                                                may have slowed the decline in the                      The commenter notes that the results of               fasciatus before it has reached maturity
                                                abundance of these two species (by                      this activity are presented in Pérez et al.          has serious implications for its long-
                                                reducing fishing effort and restricting                 (2014).                                               term survival. In the proposed rule, we
                                                catches); however, we find that existing                  Response: While we find that tagging                note that the constant fishing pressure
                                                regulatory measures are not adequate to                 work will be useful in contributing                   on M. fasciatus in Brazil’s coastal
                                                prevent further declines in the species.                valuable data for M. schmitti within                  commercial and artisanal fisheries
                                                We direct the commenter to our                          Argentine waters, the paper referenced                affects the recruitment of juvenile
                                                discussion of threats and evaluation of                 only provides results from a preliminary              sharks into the population and has
                                                the extinction risk of these two species                study that analyzed the problems                      contributed to significant declines in
                                                in the sections Summary of Factors                      currently associated with mark-                       neonate and juvenile populations. We
                                                Affecting the Six Species and Extinction                recapture studies in Argentina, which                 specifically state, ‘‘Thus, the intense
                                                Risk below.                                             the authors of the study state is a                   fishing effort by the commercial and
                                                   Comment 29: One commenter noted                      country with practically no experience                artisanal fisheries on the Plataforma Sul
                                                that we did not identify Squatina spp.                  in this technique. The paper discusses                appear to be negatively affecting the
                                                as one of the priority species in                       the outreach involved in the reporting                reproductive capacity and growth of the
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                Argentina’s FAO NPOA-sharks.                            process and issues with the lack of                   population throughout its range,’’ with
                                                   Response: We thank the commenter                     precision in recapture positions.                     this information contributing to our
                                                for this information and acknowledge                    However, after reviewing the paper, we                determination to list the species as
                                                that Argentina’s FAO NPOA-sharks does                   do not find that the information                      endangered throughout its range. As the
                                                include Squatina spp. in the list of                    provided changes any of our                           commenter provides no additional
                                                priority species that are commercially                  conclusions regarding the status of the               information on any of the other
                                                exploited in Argentine waters.                          narrownose smoothhound.                               proposed species, our conclusions


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00055   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21732             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                regarding threats to these species in                   relation to protections for the spiny                 ‘‘Based on the CPUE trends, abundance
                                                Brazilian waters remain the same.                       angelshark. Since publication of the                  of R. horkelli on the Plataforma Sul in
                                                                                                        proposed rule, we have received new                   depths of 20 m–200 m is estimated to
                                                Spiny Angelshark
                                                                                                        information on the adequacy of existing               have decreased by about 85 percent
                                                   Comment 34: One commenter                            regulatory measures to protect S.                     between 1975 and 1999 (Vooren et al.
                                                highlighted the statement in the                        guggenheim from threats and have re-                  2005a)’’ (80 FR 76077; December 7,
                                                proposed rule regarding the declining                   evaluated the extinction risk of this                 2015). Therefore, we disagree with the
                                                catch of S. guggenheim in Santa                         species. This discussion can be found in              commenter that we did not consider the
                                                Catarina, Brazil: ‘‘in 2004, landings of S.             the sections Summary of Factors                       Brazilian guitarfish decline data
                                                guggenheim along with S. occulta were                   Affecting the Six Species and Extinction              provided in De-Franco et al. (2012), as
                                                prohibited and, as such, the decline in                 Risk below.                                           that information was covered in detail
                                                landings data after 2004 may be a                                                                             in the proposed rule and contributed to
                                                reflection of this prohibition’’ (80 FR                 Argentine Angelshark                                  our proposed endangered listing
                                                76098; December 7, 2015). The                             Comment 36: The same commenter                      determination for the Brazilian
                                                commenter asserted that the decline in                  from Comment 32 above also stated that                guitarfish.
                                                catch is more likely indicative of further              we did not include the ‘‘best available
                                                population decline or decreased                                                                               Narrownose Smoothhound
                                                                                                        information’’ in relation to the status of
                                                reporting as fisheries regulations are                  S. argentina and recommended the                         Comment 38: One commenter stated
                                                commonly ignored in Brazil and the                      CTMFM Web site for more information.                  that our analysis of productivity as a
                                                observed large declines are not                           Response: Prior to publication of the               demographic threat to the narrownose
                                                consistent with even negligible                         proposed rule, we considered the                      smoothhound is flawed. The commenter
                                                compliance with fisheries regulations.                  publicly available information from the               noted that although we determined that
                                                   Response: The commenter does not                     CTMFM Web site when we evaluated                      the narrownose smoothhound has a
                                                provide any new information to                          the status of S. argentina. Since the                 ‘‘relatively high intrinsic rate of
                                                consider, besides their opinion, in                     publication of the proposed rule, we                  increase,’’ the commenter asserted that
                                                regards to the cause of the decline in                  have not received any new information                 the species still has a low rate of
                                                landings of the species. We note in the                 regarding the status of this species, or              increase that will make it more
                                                proposed rule that the best available                   found any newly available information                 susceptible to decline and less able to
                                                information indicates S. guggenheim                     on the CTMFM Web site, nor does the                   recover from overexploitation than an r-
                                                has undergone substantial population                    commenter provide any new data to                     selected species. The commenter
                                                declines in Brazilian waters, ‘‘with                    consider. As such, we maintain our                    believes that this information should
                                                evidence of negative population growth                  previous conclusion in the proposed                   elevate the threat that overfishing poses
                                                rates that led to significant decreases in              rule that the Argentine angelshark is                 to the species.
                                                the overall abundance of the species to                 presently at a high risk of extinction                   Response: While we agree with the
                                                the point where catch rates and                         throughout all of its range.                          commenter that the narrownose
                                                observations of spiny angelsharks are                                                                         smoothhound ultimately has a low
                                                extremely low’’ (80 FR 76098). We also                  Comments on Demographic Risks to the                  intrinsic rate of increase compared to ‘‘r-
                                                concluded that the fishing effort (both                 Species                                               selected’’ species, we still maintain that
                                                by trawl and gillnet fleets) is high and                                                                      there is a gradient of productivity levels
                                                                                                        Brazilian Guitarfish
                                                poorly regulated, with the present level                                                                      among shark species that help
                                                of fishing effort by the artisanal and                     Comment 37: One commenter                          determine the level of exploitation that
                                                industrial fisheries on Brazil’s                        asserted that a study by De-Franco et al.             can be sustainable. As described in the
                                                continental shelf likely to lead to further             (2012) appears to have additional                     proposed rule, M. schmitti is able to
                                                declines in the spiny angelshark                        Brazilian guitarfish decline data that we             withstand higher levels of exploitation
                                                population. A comprehensive                             did not consider in our proposed rule,                than other shark species, with
                                                discussion of the threats to S.                         and suggested that we should consider                 sustainable exploitation rates equivalent
                                                guggenheim within Brazilian waters                      this information in our final listing                 to an annual removal rate of about 10
                                                may be found in the proposed rule.                      decision for the species.                             percent of the population (Cortés 2007).
                                                   Comment 35: One commenter advised                       Response: We reviewed and                          With no new information provided by
                                                us to not place much weight on the                      considered the De-Franco et al. (2012)                the commenter, we find that there is no
                                                protective ability of seasonal fishing                  study in our proposed listing                         evidence that the species’ productivity
                                                bans in Uruguay that are designed to                    determination for the Brazilian                       is leading to depensatory processes that
                                                protect other species, but that may also                guitarfish. In fact, we cited this study to           would elevate its extinction risk;
                                                provide some protection to the spiny                    support our conclusion that regulatory                therefore, while low productivity
                                                angelshark based on overlap with the                    mechanisms are likely inadequate for                  inherently increases its risk, we have no
                                                species’ habitat. The commenter                         the species in Brazil, which, in turn,                evidence to suggest that it is currently
                                                asserted that these regulations do not                  supported our proposal to list the                    placing the species in danger of
                                                cover the entire habitat of the species                 species as endangered. Upon re-                       extinction.
                                                and could be amended at any time                        reviewing De-Franco et al. (2012), we
                                                irrespective of the status of the spiny                 note that Miranda and Vooren (2003) is                Spiny Angelshark
                                                angelshark, as they are based on                        cited as evidence that R. horkelii                      Comment 39: One commenter
                                                protecting other species.                               populations declined by approximately                 suggested that we should consider the
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                   Response: While the commenter is                     85 percent in the state of Rio Grande do              extent to which the spiny angelshark
                                                correct that the seasonal bans do not                   Sul between 1985 and 1997. Our                        populations are genetically isolated, and
                                                cover the entire spiny angelshark                       proposed rule discussed this                          the extent to which this increases their
                                                habitat, the commenter provided only                    information in detail in the                          extinction risk by reducing redundancy
                                                opinion and speculation regarding the                   Overutilization for Commercial,                       and reducing the ability of the species
                                                effectiveness or adequacy of these                      Recreational, Scientific, or Educational              to decrease the effects of removals
                                                seasonal fishing bans in Uruguay in                     Purposes section where we stated that                 through migration.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00056   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                          21733

                                                   Response: The commenter provides                     significantly contribute to the decline of               Comment 42: One commenter
                                                no new information on the genetics or                   the existing populations (based on the                requested that we amend the proposal to
                                                population structure of the species. As                 species’ demographic risks),                          use the double nomenclature ‘‘Islas
                                                mentioned in the proposed rule, we                      compromising the species’ long-term                   Malvinas’’ and ‘‘Falkland Islands’’ in
                                                considered the demographic factors of                   viability. Therefore, without any new                 our reference to the Falkland Islands
                                                abundance, growth rate and                              information from the commenter, we                    within the 12-month finding for the
                                                productivity, spatial structure and                     disagree that the species’ relative rarity            graytail skate (Bathyraja griseocauda)
                                                connectivity, and diversity, which                      should be re-evaluated as a separate                  (80 FR 76067; December 7, 2015), noting
                                                reflect concepts that are well-founded in               threat to the species, as it was already              the dispute between the government of
                                                conservation biology and that                           thoroughly evaluated in the proposed                  Argentina and the United Kingdom
                                                individually and collectively provide                   rule.                                                 concerning the sovereignty over the
                                                strong indicators of extinction risk. We                                                                      archipelago.
                                                                                                        Comments Outside of the Scope of the                     Response: We acknowledge the
                                                note that the species faces significant
                                                                                                        Proposed Rule                                         double nomenclature, but find an
                                                demographic risks, including extremely
                                                low fecundity, declining population                        Comment 41: One commenter noted                    amendment to change the 12-month
                                                growth rate, and limited connectivity.                  that the proposed species have not been               finding text for a species not included
                                                As the commenter did not provide any                    included in the Convention on                         in this final rule to be unnecessary as no
                                                new genetic or population structure data                International Trade in Endangered                     official regulation, nor regulatory text,
                                                to consider in our demographic                          Species of Wild Fauna and Flora                       containing the incomplete nomenclature
                                                analysis, our discussion regarding the                  (CITES) appendices, and, as such,                     was implemented or published in our
                                                species’ demographic risks specifically                 efforts should be made in this                        U.S. Code of Federal Regulations as a
                                                from spatial structure and connectivity                 multilateral forum before listing under               result of the 12-month finding.
                                                and diversity remains the same.                         the ESA. In this regard, the commenter
                                                                                                        noted that the United States should                   Summary of Changes From the
                                                However, we have since revised our                                                                            Proposed Listing Rule
                                                extinction risk analysis for the species                consider the impacts of the proposal on
                                                based on new information received                       developing countries, including any                      Based on public comments and new
                                                since the publication of the proposed                   restrictions on commercial exports, and               information received since the
                                                rule, and this discussion can be found                  consult with the countries where these                publication of the proposed listing rule,
                                                in the section Extinction Risk below.                   species occur.                                        we made the changes listed below.
                                                                                                           Response: Under the ESA, we are                       1. We re-evaluated threats to the
                                                Argentine Angelshark                                    required to determine whether a species               species and the extinction risk of the
                                                   Comment 40: One commenter                            is endangered or threatened based solely              narrownose smoothhound shark based
                                                asserted that the relative rarity of the                on the best scientific and commercial                 on new information and have
                                                Argentine angelshark represents an                      data available, after conducting a review             determined that the species remains at
                                                additional threat to the species as it                  of the species’ status and after taking               a moderate risk of extinction.
                                                ‘‘. . . may not have the redundancy                     into account efforts being made by any                   2. We re-evaluated threats to the
                                                necessary to mediate against                            State or foreign nation to protect the                species and the extinction risk of the
                                                overutilization.’’ The commenter then                   species. We cannot consider economic                  spiny angelshark based on new
                                                cited to the proposed rule and stated:                  impacts when making listing                           information and have determined that
                                                ‘‘This is exacerbated by the fact that the              determinations. In addition, the                      the species is presently at a high risk of
                                                species appears unable to move between                  standards for listing species in the                  extinction.
                                                populations, indicating that reductions                 CITES appendices are separate from the                   3. We also revised the common names
                                                will likely not be mediated by migrating                standards for listing species under the               of the proposed Squatina species to
                                                individuals and that extirpations are                   ESA. While we work with the U.S. Fish                 reflect ‘‘angelsharks’’ as a single word
                                                therefore more likely.’’                                & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to carry out               (in the proposed rule, we referred to
                                                   Response: We considered the relative                 the provisions of CITES, providing                    them as ‘‘angel sharks’’). We find that
                                                rarity of the Argentine angelshark as                   guidance and scientific support on                    either spelling is acceptable; however,
                                                well as its spatial structure and                       marine issues and participating fully in              because we have previously listed three
                                                connectivity in the Demographic Risk                    the implementation of CITES for species               other ‘‘angelshark’’ species under the
                                                Analysis—Abundance and Spatial                          under our jurisdiction, the listing of                ESA (81 FR 50394; August 1, 2016), in
                                                Structure/Connectivity sections of the                  species on the CITES appendices is not                order to be consistent, we are following
                                                proposed rule. These factors were also                  a prerequisite for listing under the ESA.             the same naming convention for the
                                                discussed and considered in the Risk of                 Furthermore, ESA listing will not                     angelshark species addressed in this
                                                Extinction section of the proposed rule                 restrict export of the six species from               final rule.
                                                and contributed to the proposed                         their range countries. Section 9(a)(1)                   A summary of the new information
                                                endangered listing for the Argentine                    restricts, among other things, only                   received since the publication of the
                                                angelshark. As stated in the proposed                   import into and export from the United                proposed rule as it relates to the status
                                                rule, we note that given the species’                   States by persons subject to U.S.                     of the narrownose smoothhound and
                                                restricted range and present rarity                     jurisdiction. It does not regulate import             spiny angelshark is presented in the
                                                throughout its range, combined with its                 into or export from other countries. In               remainder of this document, along with
                                                limited movement and dispersal                          terms of consulting with foreign nations              our re-evaluation of the extinction risk
                                                between populations and low                             where the proposed species occur, and                 of these two species based on this new
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                reproductive output, S. argentina is                    as required by ESA Section 4(b)(5)(B),                information and our final listing
                                                likely strongly influenced by stochastic                we gave notice of and directly solicited              determinations for all six elasmobranch
                                                or depensatory processes. This                          comments on our proposal from the                     species. None of the information
                                                vulnerability is further exacerbated by                 foreign ambassadors of each country in                received since publication of the
                                                the present threats of overutilization                  which the six species are believed to                 proposed rule causes us to reconsider
                                                and inadequacy of existing regulatory                   occur. We received a response only from               our previous findings for the other four
                                                measures that are and will continue to                  the Embassy of the Argentine Republic.                elasmobranch species as reflected in the


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00057   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21734             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                proposed rule. Thus, all of the                         abundant and widely distributed triakid               estimated to be around 53 to 64 percent
                                                information contained in the status                     (houndshark) in the Argentine Sea (Van                of virgin (i.e., 1983) biomass (CTMFM
                                                review reports and proposed rule for the                der Molen and Caille 2001). In                        2016). These values are based on three
                                                daggernose shark, Brazilian guitarfish,                 Argentina, M. schmitti is considered the              models from Cortés et al. (2016a) that
                                                striped smoothhound shark, and                          most important elasmobranch in                        incorporated indices of abundance
                                                Argentine angelshark is reaffirmed in                   Argentine fisheries, making up 9–12                   estimated from INIDEP research surveys
                                                this final action.                                      percent of the total landings from                    and Argentine commercial fleet data
                                                                                                        coastal fleets (Galı́ndez et al. 2010), and           and annual landings data of M. schmitti
                                                Species Determinations
                                                                                                        is the most heavily exploited shark                   by Uruguayan and Argentinean vessels
                                                   We did not receive any new                           species in artisanal fisheries. Cortés et            in the AUCFZ. While all models showed
                                                information related to taxonomic status                 al. (2016a) note that the shark is                    a general decline in biomass since the
                                                of any of the six elasmobranch species.                 generally found in greater abundance in               late 1980s, in recent years, biomass has
                                                Therefore, based on the best available                  the estuarine systems of El Rincón and               appeared to stabilize and even increase
                                                scientific and commercial information                   the Rı́o de la Plata, where it is mainly              (Cortés et al. 2016a). Since 2013, when
                                                described in the proposed rule (80 FR                   captured by the Argentine multi-species               management measures were
                                                7606, December 7, 2015) and included                    coastal fleet. In Uruguay, the species is             implemented in the AUCFZ that set
                                                in the status review reports (Casselberry               the target of the artisanal gillnet fishery           maximum catch limits per trip for
                                                and Carlson 2015 a–f), we find that the                 and incidentally caught by the artisanal              sharks, rays, and chondrichthyans (see
                                                daggernose shark (I. oxyrhynchus),                      and industrial trawl fleets operating in              Resol. CFP 04/2013 and Resol. CTMFM
                                                Brazilian guitarfish (R. horkelii), striped             the Atlantic Ocean, including within the              09/2013), biomass of M. schmittti
                                                smoothhound shark (M. fasciatus),                       AUCFZ.                                                declined by less than 1 percent in two
                                                narrownose smoothhound shark (M.                           In terms of factors affecting the status
                                                                                                                                                              of the models examined, and increased
                                                schmitti), spiny angelshark (S.                         of the narrownose smoothhound, the
                                                                                                                                                              by 2.6 percent in the third model.
                                                guggenheim), and Argentine angelshark                   proposed rule concluded that the main
                                                                                                                                                              However, based on our interpretation of
                                                (S. argentina) are taxonomically-distinct               threat to this species is overutilization
                                                                                                                                                              the available information, we find that
                                                species, meeting the definition of                      for commercial purposes, with current
                                                                                                                                                              annual catch limits specifically for M.
                                                ‘‘species’’ pursuant to section 3 of the                regulatory measures inadequate to
                                                                                                                                                              schmitti are currently set too high. For
                                                ESA, and are eligible for listing under                 protect the species from further
                                                                                                                                                              each model, Cortés et al. (2016a)
                                                the ESA.                                                overutilization. The proposed rule
                                                                                                        provided data on the decline in both the              provide an estimate of the ‘‘replacement
                                                Summary of Factors Affecting the Six                                                                          capture’’ for each year, which the
                                                                                                        CPUE and biomass of the species
                                                Species                                                                                                       authors define as the catch value that
                                                                                                        throughout its range due to fishing
                                                   Next we consider whether any one or                  pressure. Additionally, the proposed                  would produce stable biomass from
                                                a combination of the five factors                       rule noted a decrease in the estimated                time t to time t + 1. Since 2012, when
                                                specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA                 mean size and size at maturity of                     the CTMFM began setting species-
                                                contribute to the extinction risk of these              narrownose smoothhounds off the coast                 specific total permissible catch limits
                                                species and result in the species                       of Argentina since the 1970s, providing               for narrownose smoothhound, these
                                                meeting the definition of ‘‘endangered                  further evidence of the overexploitation              catch limits have always been higher
                                                species’’ or ‘‘threatened species.’’ The                of the species.                                       than the replacement capture estimates.
                                                comments that we received on the                           Since publication of the proposed                  Most recently, the 2016 annual catch
                                                proposed rule provided information that                 rule, we received updated and new                     limit set by the CTMFM was 3,500 t
                                                was either already considered in our                    information related to the trends in                  despite replacement capture estimates
                                                analysis or was not substantial or                      landings, CPUE, and biomass of the                    that range from 2,568 t to 3,163 t. As
                                                relevant, and, therefore, did not change                narrownose smoothhound specifically                   such, these annual catch limits appear
                                                our analysis of or conclusions regarding                in the AUCFZ (i.e., Rı́o de la Plata and              inadequate to ensure stable biomass
                                                any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their             Maritime Front). As the proposed rule                 numbers for M. schmitti into the future.
                                                interactions for the daggernose shark (I.               notes, the AUCFZ is the area where                    Yet, as mentioned above, the models in
                                                oxyrhynchus), Brazilian guitarfish (R.                  current fisheries information indicates               Cortés et al. (2016a) depict stable and
                                                horkelii), striped smoothhound shark                    narrownose smoothhounds may likely                    increasing biomass trends for the
                                                (M. fasciatus), and Argentine angelshark                be most abundant but also heavily                     species. These trends are likely
                                                (S. argentina). Therefore, all of the                   targeted. The available data at the time              explained by the fact that actual
                                                information, discussion, and                            of the proposed rule showed that                      landings of the species have been close
                                                conclusions on the summary of factors                   landings of the species in the AUFCZ                  to and even below the replacement
                                                affecting these four elasmobranch                       decreased in recent years, from 4,480 t               capture estimates since 2012, and while
                                                species contained in the status review                  in 2010 to 2,921 t in 2014 (CTMFM                     these landings figures may potentially
                                                reports and proposed rule is reaffirmed                 2015). Although annual catch limits for               indicate a decrease in the overall
                                                in this final action.                                   M. schmitti have been implemented in                  abundance of the species and, therefore,
                                                   For the narrownose smoothhound and                   the AUCFZ by the CTMFM since 2002,                    catchability of the species, modeled
                                                spiny angelshark, below we provide a                    the proposed rule noted that ‘‘Due to a               CPUE trends suggest otherwise, showing
                                                summary and analysis of the new                         lack of abundance data since 2003, it is              a slight decrease since the mid-2000s
                                                information received since publication                  unclear whether the catch limits for                  and no trend (or stable trend) in recent
                                                of the proposed rule (and not already                   Mustelus spp. have positively affected                years (Cortés et al. 2016a). However, the
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                discussed in the response to public                     the population . . . though it is worth               authors caution that considering the
                                                comments) on the threats to these two                   noting that since 2010, catches of M.                 susceptibility of the species to
                                                species.                                                schmitti in the AUFCZ have been below                 exploitation, the previous
                                                                                                        the total allowable levels and on a                   overexploitation of the species, and the
                                                Narrownose Smoothhound                                  decline (CTMFM 2015).’’ Based on new                  uncertainty of the data available for the
                                                  As noted in the proposed rule, the                    information received from the CTMFM,                  models, management of the species
                                                narrownose smoothhound is the most                      biomass of the species in 2016 is                     should be established using a highly


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00058   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                           21735

                                                precautionary approach (Cortés et al.                  Plata; (B) to the south, by the parallel              AUCFZ, our conclusions from the
                                                2016a).                                                 37° S.; (C) to the west, by the outer limit           proposed rule regarding threats to the
                                                   Additionally, while the proposed rule                of the Argentine territorial sea; D) to the           species within Argentinean and
                                                noted a chronological decrease in the                   east, by the meridian 56°00′ W.                       Uruguayan waters outside of the
                                                estimated size of maturity of                           Specifically, Colonello and Massa                     AUCFZ, and Brazilian waters, remains
                                                narrownose smoothhounds in the                          (2016) analyzed data from coastal                     the same.
                                                AUCFZ and El Rincon regions,                            research surveys conducted between
                                                indicative of overutilization of the                                                                          Spiny Angelshark
                                                                                                        2011 and 2015 to examine the spatial
                                                species, new information suggests that                  distribution and relative abundance,                     As noted in the proposed rule, spiny
                                                average maturity size may either vary by                including life history stages, of a                   angelsharks are found from Brazil to
                                                site or has potentially increased again in              number of shark and ray species within                Argentina. Throughout its range, the
                                                recent years. Specifically, the proposed                and around the 3656 closure. The                      species is heavily fished by commercial
                                                rule reported maturity estimates of 60                  surveys covered coastal areas of Buenos               and artisanal fishermen; however,
                                                centimeters (cm) and 62 cm total length                 Aires and Uruguay up to 50 m depths.                  according to Cortés et al. (2006b), more
                                                (TL) for males and females, respectively,               Results confirmed the presence of both                than 80 percent of the landings of S.
                                                in 1978 and noted that by 1998,                         sexes and all life history stages of M.               guggenheim correspond to catches
                                                maturity estimates had decreased to                     schmitti within the 3656 rectangle                    between 34° S. and 42° S. latitudes, at
                                                57.6 cm TL for males and 59.9 cm for                    (Colonello and Massa 2016). In the                    depths less than 50 m. In Argentina, the
                                                females (80 FR 76087; December 7,                       spring surveys (conducted in November                 spiny angelshark is commercially
                                                2015). Based on individuals caught in                   and December), sets frequently showed                 exploited in local fisheries that occur in
                                                2004, Cortes (2007) found the length at                 high densities of narrownose                          the San Matı́as Gulf (Perier et al. 2011),
                                                50 percent maturity (LT50) for females                  smoothhound (greater than 2 t/mn2                     which comprises around 10 percent of
                                                to be only 56 cm TL. However, de                        (tonnes per square nautical mile)),                   its range. The species is also
                                                Silveira et al. (2015) collected samples                including within the 3656 closure                     commercially exploited by the fisheries
                                                of narrownose smoothhounds from                         (Colonello and Massa 2016). The                       operating in the AUFCZ, which overlaps
                                                artisanal fisheries in La Paloma (Rocha)                authors note that the highest                         with areas of higher concentration of the
                                                during the years 2014 and 2015 and                      concentrations of adult males and adult               species (Jaureguizar et al. 2006;
                                                determined that LT50 for males was                      non-pregnant and pregnant females in                  Colonello et al. 2007; Massa and Hozbor
                                                60.2 cm TL (n = 431) and for females it                                                                       2008; Vögler et al. 2008) and comprises
                                                                                                        the spring surveys were observed in
                                                was 61 cm TL (n = 280), estimates that                                                                        around 25 percent of the species’ range.
                                                                                                        shallow areas, supporting the
                                                match those that were recorded from                                                                           In Uruguay, spiny angelsharks are
                                                                                                        assumption these areas are used for
                                                over three decades ago. Given this new                                                                        captured by industrial trawling fleets in
                                                                                                        reproductive purposes (Colonello and
                                                information, along with the indication                                                                        coastal and offshore waters (Vögler et al.
                                                                                                        Massa 2016). However, as the most
                                                of a potentially stable population, we                                                                        2008), and in southern Brazil, spiny
                                                                                                        coastal zone of the 3656 rectangle is
                                                find that the threat of overutilization                                                                       angelsharks have been heavily fished by
                                                                                                        controlled by the Province of Buenos
                                                within the AUCFZ may have been                                                                                industrial trawlers and gillnet fleets for
                                                                                                        Aires (Argentine territorial waters), the
                                                overstated in the proposed rule.                                                                              the past few decades (Haimovici 1998;
                                                                                                        authors stress the need to ensure the full
                                                   In terms of other threats, the proposed                                                                    Vögler et al. 2008).
                                                                                                        synchronicity of the closure of both the                 In terms of factors affecting the status
                                                rule noted the inadequacy of existing
                                                                                                        3656 area and the Provincial part of the              of the spiny angelshark, the proposed
                                                regulatory mechanisms to control
                                                                                                        rectangle. This is particularly important             rule concluded that the main threat to
                                                overexploitation of the species
                                                                                                        since the Colonello and Massa (2016)                  this species is overutilization for
                                                throughout large portions of its range,
                                                including within the AUCFZ. However,                    data show that during the months when                 commercial purposes. The proposed
                                                the proposed rule mentioned measures                    this does not occur (i.e., November and               rule provided data on the decline of the
                                                in the AUCFZ that were likely effective                 December), there is a redistribution of               species in Brazil, noting that the impact
                                                in protecting the narrownose                            fishing effort specifically within the                of heavy fishing pressure on the species
                                                smoothhound, including a prohibition                    open Provincial coastal areas of 3656                 by trawlers and gillnet fleets since the
                                                of demersal trawling in a section known                 (and in neighboring areas next to the                 1980s resulted in an 85 percent decline
                                                to be an important area for                             closed areas of 3656) (Colonello and                  in the abundance of the S. guggenheim
                                                chondrichthyan reproduction (referred                   Massa 2016). Thus, while we find that                 population. Fishing mortality rates
                                                to as statistical rectangle 3656) and                   the 3656 closure is adequate in                       exceeded population growth rates, with
                                                additional area closures to trawling gear               providing a high degree of protection                 an annual rate of population decline of
                                                in other portions of the AUCFZ, like                    from fishery-related mortality for the                16 percent in the mid-1990s. In
                                                within the Rı́o de la Plata (where                      narrownose smoothhound during                         Argentina, the proposed rule cited
                                                historical estimates of narrownose                      important reproductive events, we note                CPUE data that showed population
                                                smoothhound were as high as 44 t/nmi2;                  that the species is capable of moving in              declines of up to 58 percent in the late
                                                Cousseau et al. 1998), in order to protect              and out of this closure area and that all             1990s, but reported a lack of recent
                                                whitemouth croaker (Micropogonias                       life history stages are found outside of              abundance estimates or trends
                                                furnieri) and juvenile hake from                        the closure area and, therefore, juveniles            throughout the rest of the species range,
                                                overexploitation by the fisheries.                      and reproducing adults are still                      particularly in the AUCFZ.
                                                   Since publication of the proposed                    susceptible to being caught by fishing                   Since publication of the proposed
                                                rule, we received new information                       vessels. Additionally, when the                       rule, we received updated and new
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                regarding the likely effectiveness of the               Provincial area is also open, this                    information related to the trends in
                                                prohibition in 3656 as it pertains to the               significantly decreases the overall                   landings, CPUE, and biomass of the
                                                protection of narrownose smoothhound.                   effectiveness of the closure in protecting            spiny angelshark specifically in the
                                                For clarification, the boundaries of 3656               sensitive life history stages of species              AUCFZ. As the proposed rule notes, the
                                                are defined as follows: (A) To the north                from fishery-related mortality.                       AUCFZ comprises around one quarter of
                                                by the parallel 36° S. and its intersection                As we have no new information on                   the species’ range and is where survey
                                                with the outer limit of the Rio de la                   threats to the species outside of the                 data suggest the species is likely at


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00059   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21736             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                highest concentration. The available                    CTMFM was 2,600 t despite modeled                     2016). Additionally, the rectangle
                                                data at the time of the proposed rule                   replacement capture estimates of 1,761                covering the Rı́o de la Plata estuary
                                                showed that landings of the species in                  t and 1,765 t (Cortés et al. 2016b). Given           (3555) also showed an increase in
                                                the AUFCZ decreased in recent years,                    the clearly unsustainable fishing levels              landings in recent years to the point
                                                from 3,763 t in 2010 to below 2,300 t in                and inadequacy of existing regulatory                 where landings from this rectangle are
                                                2014 (CTMFM 2015). These catch levels                   measures, the decline in the biomass                  around the same magnitude as those in
                                                are similar to those reported in the                    and the abundance of the species is                   3655 and 3756 (Hozbor and Pérez 2016).
                                                1990s in Argentine waters, which                        likely to continue to occur.                          In other words, similar to the findings
                                                resulted in declines of up to 58 percent                   In addition to the biomass and fishing             from the Colonello and Massa (2016),
                                                in the species’ abundance. Beginning in                 mortality estimates, we received new                  the data from Hozbor and Pérez (2016)
                                                2012, annual maximum permitted catch                    information regarding the likely                      also suggest a potential redistribution of
                                                limits for all Squatina spp. (of which the              effectiveness of the AUCFZ prohibition                fishing effort around the closed area
                                                large majority are S. guggenheim) have                  in 3656 as it pertains to the protection              (3656). For spiny angelsharks, however,
                                                been implemented in the AUCFZ by the                    of spiny angelsharks. The Colonello and               this may portend even greater declines
                                                CTMFM; however, these limits have                       Massa (2016) study, which was                         in the species as the Colonello and
                                                never been met since 2013. The                          mentioned above in the narrownose                     Massa (2016) observed higher
                                                proposed rule concluded that ’’ . . .                   smoothhound discussion, also                          abundance of the species north of 36° S.
                                                without effort information, it is unclear               examined the spatial distribution and                 latitude, including in the Rı́o de la Plata
                                                whether these regulations and the                       relative abundance, including life                    estuary, where the data from Hozbor
                                                corresponding decreases in landings can                 history stages, of the spiny angelshark               and Pérez (2016) indicate a recent
                                                be attributed to adequate control of the                within and around the 3656 closure.                   increasing trend in landings of the
                                                exploitation of the species or rather                   Results confirmed the presence of both                species, likely due to the redistribution
                                                reflects [sic] the lower abundance of the               sexes and all life history stages of S.               of fishing effort as a result of the 3656
                                                species from declining populations, or                  guggenheim within the 3656 rectangle;                 closure. As such, we do not find that
                                                more likely a combination of the two                    however, the sets that frequently                     existing regulatory measures in the
                                                scenarios’’ (80 FR 76097).                              showed the highest densities of spiny                 AUCFZ, including the 3656 closure, are
                                                                                                        angelsharks (greater than 2 t/mn2)                    adequately decreasing the threat of
                                                   Based on new information received
                                                                                                        occurred north of 36° S. latitude, within             overutilization to the point where the
                                                from the CTMFM, biomass of the
                                                                                                        the Rı́o de la Plata estuary and territorial          species is no longer at risk of declines.
                                                species in 2016 is estimated to be                      waters of Uruguay (Colonello and Massa                   In Uruguay, the proposed rule
                                                around 46 percent of optimum biomass                    2016).                                                provided angelshark landings data by
                                                for the species (CTMFM 2016). This                         In contrast, based on landings data                Uruguayan fleets operating in the
                                                value is based on two models from                       from the Argentine commercial fleet,                  AUCFZ. The proposed rule noted that
                                                Cortés et al. (2016b) that incorporated                Hozbor and Pérez (2016) suggest that the             the proportion of Uruguayan landings
                                                indices of abundance estimated from                     distribution of the species may be                    compared to Argentinian landings
                                                INIDEP research surveys and annual                      concentrated in and around 3656. Using                increased to 18.4 percent of the total by
                                                landings data of angelsharks by                         official fisheries statistics from the                2014 (80 FR 76071; December 7, 2015),
                                                Uruguayan and Argentinean vessels in                    Argentine commercial fleet between                    as did the number of angelshark
                                                the AUCFZ. The fishing mortality rate of                2000 and 2015, Hozbor and Pérez (2016)               landings attributed to Uruguayan
                                                S. guggenheim in 2016 was estimated to                  found that the fleet of boats 18–25 m in              vessels (from 26 t in 2012 to 142 t and
                                                be 65 percent higher than the fishing                   length mostly operated in the depth                   158 t in 2013 and 2014, respectively) (80
                                                mortality rate at maximum sustainable                   stratum where S. guggenheim would                     FR 76095; December 7, 2015). The
                                                yield (Cortés et al. 2016b). Based on the              occur, whereas the boats <18 m had a                  proposed rule further concluded that
                                                estimates of biomass since the early                    more limited area of operation, and the               this information indicated ‘‘a potential
                                                1980s, S. guggenheim biomass has                        boats >25 m fished in depths greater                  increasing trend in the exploitation of
                                                declined by 77 to 81 percent (depending                 than 50 m and south of 38° S. latitude,               the spiny angelshark by Uruguayan
                                                on the model) (Cortés et al. 2016b).                   and, therefore, would likely only catch               fishing vessels’’ (80 FR 76095).
                                                Since 2013, when management                             S. argentina. Not surprisingly, the                   However, based on recent landings data
                                                measures were implemented in the                        authors found that the fleet of 18–25 m               from the Dirección Nacional de
                                                AUCFZ that set maximum catch limits                     boats represented, on average, about 52               Recursos Acuáticos (DINARA)
                                                per trip for sharks, rays, and                          percent of the annual total catch of S.               presented to the CTMFM, the
                                                chondrichthyans (see Resol. CFP 04/                     guggenheim over the time period                       Uruguayan proportion may have been
                                                2013 and Resol. CTMFM 09/2013), S.                      (Hozbor and Pérez 2016). Using the                   overstated in the proposed rule. In 2014,
                                                guggenheim biomass has declined by 14                   fishery reports from this fleet, the                  landings for Squatina spp. in the
                                                percent (Cortés et al. 2016b).                         authors examined the distribution of                  AUCFZ was 158 t by Uruguayan vessels;
                                                Additionally, abundance has been on a                   landings of S. guggenheim by statistical              however, this comprised only 6.9
                                                declining trend since the early 2000s                   rectangle (for example, statistical                   percent of the total landings of
                                                (Cortés et al. 2016b). Likely a major                  rectangle 3655 is a rectangle defined by              angelsharks from the treaty area. In
                                                contributing factor to these declines is                lines drawn from 36° S. latitude to 37°               2015, Uruguayan vessels landed 104 t of
                                                the fact that landings of the species have              S. latitude and 55° W. longitude to 56°               Squatina spp., comprising only 4.4
                                                been higher than estimated replacement                  W. longitude). The results showed that                percent of the total. However, it is worth
                                                captures since 2002 (Cortés et al.                     the landings from 2000–2015 were                      noting that fishing effort of Uruguayan
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                2016b). Also, since 2012, when the                      greatest in rectangles 3655, 3756, and                vessels tends to be concentrated in the
                                                CTMFM began setting total permissible                   3656 (which is the closure area);                     Rı́o de la Plata estuary area and the
                                                catch limits for angelsharks, these                     however, since the 3656 closure has                   Uruguayan coast north of 36° S. latitude,
                                                maximum catch limits have always been                   been in effect, landings have decreased               where, as mentioned above, higher
                                                higher than the replacement capture                     in 3656 and increased in the                          abundance of the species is observed.
                                                estimates. In fact, most recently, the                  neighboring rectangles including 3556,                   Additionally, as noted in the
                                                2016 annual catch limit set by the                      3655, and 3756 (Hozbor and Pérez                     proposed rule, Squatina spp. are also


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00060   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                          21737

                                                targeted and caught as bycatch in                       fishermen, would result in a continual                inadequate to prevent further declines
                                                Uruguayan waters by artisanal                           decline in the species through the                    in the abundance of the species,
                                                longliners and gillnetters. New                         foreseeable future.                                   considering that annual catch limits are
                                                information on the catch of the species                    Additionally, current closures to                  currently set too high to achieve a stable
                                                by artisanal fishing vessels was                        protect the population of the species                 biomass and the 3656 closure does not
                                                provided in Ligrone et al. (2014) who                   within the AUCFZ may not be adequate                  appear to coincide with the areas of
                                                surveyed 21 artisanal fishermen                         to significantly decrease its overall risk            highest S. guggenheim density within
                                                operating in Uruguay between 2006 and                   of extinction, particularly when the                  the AUCFZ. Additionally, a result of the
                                                2009. Ligrone et al. (2014) found that                  Provincial section of the 3656 closure is             3656 closure has been a redistribution of
                                                Squatina spp. comprised 11 percent of                   open to fishing. As was demonstrated in               fishing effort into areas of the AUCFZ
                                                the total landing weight, with                          the study by Colonello and Massa                      where S. guggenheim occurs more
                                                angelsharks mainly caught by large                      (2016), the highest concentrations of                 frequently, thereby increasing the
                                                mesh fishing between October and                        juveniles and reproductively active                   number of fishery-related mortalities for
                                                February and concentrated near the                      adults were observed in shallow areas,                the species (as demonstrated by recent
                                                ports of La Paloma or Cabo Polonio.                     including within the Provincial section               landings data). While the proposed rule
                                                While there is a ban on trawling from                   of 3656, during the spring surveys in                 stated that ‘‘While the Brazilian
                                                the coast of Uruguay to 7 nmi offshore,                 November and December, a time when                    populations have experienced
                                                we could find no similar prohibition for                fishing is allowed within the Provincial              substantial declines and remain at risk
                                                other types of gear.                                    area. Also, the redistribution of fishing             from overutilization by fisheries, the
                                                  In Brazilian waters, no new                           effort during the closure to neighboring              same cannot be concluded with
                                                information was found on threats to the                 areas, including the Provincial area,                 certainty for the populations farther
                                                species, therefore, our conclusions from                suggests that fishermen are likely                    south in the species’ range’’ (80 FR
                                                the proposed rule remain the same.                      targeting the species as it moves out of              76099; December 7, 2015) we find this
                                                                                                        the closure, thus decreasing the                      no longer to be accurate. Based on the
                                                Extinction Risk
                                                                                                        effectiveness of the closure in protecting            new information above, we find that the
                                                  As stated previously, the information                 the species during important                          species is experiencing substantial
                                                received from public comments on the                    reproductive events.                                  declines and remains at risk from
                                                proposed rule was either already                           Overall, while we find that there is               overutilization by fisheries throughout
                                                considered in our analysis or was not                   still considerable uncertainty regarding              its range. Given the significant
                                                substantial or relevant, and, therefore                 the species’ current abundance                        demographic risks to the species (e.g.,
                                                none of the information affected our                    throughout its entire range, the best                 extremely low fecundity, declining
                                                extinction risk evaluations of the                      available information indicates that the              population growth rate, and limited
                                                daggernose shark (I. oxyrhynchus),                      species has likely experienced                        connectivity), we find that the
                                                Brazilian guitarfish (R. horkelii), striped             population declines of significant                    continued decline in the species’
                                                smoothhound shark (M. fasciatus), and                   magnitude since the 1980s due to                      abundance as a result of overutilization,
                                                Argentine angelshark (S. argentina).                    overutilization, including a 36–47                    with evidence of continued and heavy
                                                Therefore, all of the information                       percent decline in biomass within the                 fishing pressure on the species
                                                contained in the status review reports                  AUCFZ and an 85 percent decline in                    throughout its entire range, and the
                                                and proposed rule on the extinction risk                abundance in waters off Brazil, with the              inadequacy of existing regulatory
                                                of these four elasmobranch species is                   possible extirpation of a local breeding              measures to protect the species from
                                                reaffirmed in this final action. Below,                 population. The species continues to be               this threat, are significantly
                                                we provide a discussion of how the new                  heavily exploited throughout its range,               compromising the long-term viability of
                                                information received since publication                  both targeted and caught as bycatch, and              the species and placing its persistence
                                                of the final rule has affected our                      we find that existing regulatory                      into question.
                                                extinction risk analyses for narrownose                 measures are inadequate to prevent
                                                smoothhound and spiny angelshark.                       further declines in the species                       Protective Efforts
                                                                                                        throughout the foreseeable future.                       Finally, we considered conservation
                                                Narrownose Smoothhound Shark
                                                                                                                                                              efforts to protect each species and
                                                   We find that the best available                      Spiny Angelshark
                                                                                                                                                              evaluated whether these conservation
                                                information, including the information                     We find that the best available                    efforts are adequate to mitigate the
                                                from the proposed rule as well as the                   information, including the information                existing threats to the point where
                                                new information received, indicates that                from the proposed rule as well as the                 extinction risk is significantly lowered
                                                M. schmitti currently faces a moderate                  new information received, indicates that              and the species’ status is improved.
                                                risk of extinction. While there is                      S. guggenheim currently faces a high                  None of the comments we received
                                                conflicting evidence regarding the                      risk of extinction. The primary threat to             since publication of the proposed rule
                                                previously reported chronological                       S. guggenheim is overutilization in                   provided any new, relevant or
                                                decline in mean size of maturity, and                   artisanal and commercial fisheries. In                substantial information regarding
                                                recent evidence that the declining trend                Argentina, S. guggenheim biomass has                  conservation efforts to protect the six
                                                in the AUCFZ population of narrownose                   declined by 77 to 81 percent since the                elasmobranch species. Thus, all of the
                                                smoothhounds has slowed or                              1980s and, despite management                         information, discussion, and
                                                potentially halted, we note that                        measures that include annual catch                    conclusions on the protective efforts for
                                                regulatory measures are not currently                   limits and trawling prohibitions,                     the six elasmobranch species contained
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                adequate to protect the species from                    biomass continues to decline.                         in the status review reports and
                                                overutilization. While landings of the                  Additionally, abundance has been on a                 proposed rule are reaffirmed in this
                                                species within the AUCFZ have                           declining trend since the early 2000s,                final action.
                                                remained close to or below replacement                  with current fishing mortality rates 65
                                                capture estimates in recent years, the                  percent higher than what would attain                 Final Determination
                                                annual catch limits have consistently                   maximum sustainable yield. Existing                     We have reviewed the best available
                                                been set too high, and, if met by                       regulatory mechanisms are likely                      scientific and commercial information,


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00061   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21738             Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                including the petition, the information                 trends, and limited connectivity); (4)                vulnerability to depletion given the
                                                in the status review reports (Casselbury                heavily fished both historically and                  species’ present demographic risks (e.g.,
                                                and Carlson 2015 a–f), the comments of                  currently, with fleets that operate year-             relatively high intrinsic rate of
                                                peer reviewers, public comments, and                    round, including during the sharks’                   population increase and ability to
                                                information that has become available                   reproductive season migrations, hence                 withstand moderate levels of
                                                since the publication of the proposed                   capturing all life stages of spiny                    exploitation of up to 10 percent of the
                                                rule (80 FR 76067; December 7, 2015).                   angelsharks and contributing to the                   total population); (4) heavily exploited
                                                Based on the best available scientific                  decline and overutilization of the                    throughout its range (considered the
                                                and commercial information, and after                   species throughout its range; and (5)                 most important elasmobranch in
                                                considering efforts being made to                       current regulations that are inadequate               Argentine fisheries, making up 9–12
                                                protect each of these species, we find                  to protect the species from further                   percent of the total landings from
                                                that the daggernose shark, Brazilian                    overutilization throughout its range                  coastal fleets; target of artisanal gillnet
                                                guitarfish, striped smoothhound shark,                  (e.g., annual catch limits that are
                                                                                                                                                              fisheries); (5) decreases in average size
                                                spiny angelshark, and Argentine                         currently set too high to achieve a stable
                                                                                                                                                              of landed sharks (observed by the late
                                                angelshark are in danger of extinction                  biomass and fishery area closures that
                                                throughout their respective ranges. We                  do not appear to coincide with the areas              1990s and early 2000s); and (6) current
                                                have also determined that the                           of highest S. guggenheim density).                    regulations that are inadequate to
                                                narrownose smoothhound is not                              The spiny angelshark has suffered                  protect the species from overutilization
                                                currently in danger of extinction, but                  significant population declines                       and further decline throughout its range
                                                likely to become so in the foreseeable                  throughout its range due to                           (e.g., annual catch limits that are
                                                future throughout its range.                            overutilization in industrial and                     currently set too high to achieve a stable
                                                   As none of the information received                  artisanal fisheries. The decline and                  biomass and fishery area closures that
                                                since publication of the proposed rule                  subsequent rarity of the spiny                        may not protect the species from
                                                provided any new, relevant or                           angelshark in an area that comprises                  fishery-related mortality).
                                                substantial information that changed                    around half of its range (i.e., off Brazil),             The species has experienced
                                                our analyses or conclusions that led to                 combined with the declines in biomass                 population declines of varying
                                                our determinations for the daggernose                   of up to 81 percent in the AUCFZ, its                 magnitude throughout its range.
                                                shark, Brazilian guitarfish, striped                    significant demographic risks, and                    Although the species’ relatively high
                                                smoothhound shark, and Argentine                        evidence of continued and heavy fishing               intrinsic rate of population increase and
                                                angelshark, the determinations in the                   pressure on the species throughout its
                                                                                                                                                              ability to withstand moderate levels of
                                                proposed rule for these species (80 FR                  range, make the spiny angelshark
                                                                                                                                                              exploitation up to 10 percent of the total
                                                76067; December 7, 2015) are reaffirmed                 particularly susceptible to increased
                                                in this final rule. For the spiny                       local extirpations and place it at                    population provides the narrownose
                                                angelshark and narrownose                               immediate risk of extinction from                     smoothhound shark with some
                                                smoothhound shark, we provide a                         environmental and anthropogenic                       protection from extinction, and is likely
                                                summary of our final listing                            perturbations or catastrophic events.                 the reason why the species remains the
                                                determinations for these species based                  Additionally, with no indication that                 most abundant houndshark in the
                                                on the new information considered and                   abundance trends have stabilized or                   Argentine Sea, the decreases in
                                                analyzed in this final rule as well as                  reversed in recent years, and evidence                populations (particularly off Brazil) and
                                                information discussed in the proposed                   that existing regulatory measures are                 average size of the species suggest it is
                                                rule (80 FR 76067; December 7, 2015).                   inadequate to alter this trend, this                  being exploited at a level exceeding
                                                   We have determined that the spiny                    species will continue to suffer from                  what it can sustain. While biomass may
                                                angelshark is presently in danger of                    fishery-related mortality throughout its              currently be stable in the AUCFZ, this
                                                extinction from threats of                              range and remain in danger of                         does not appear to be a result of
                                                overutilization and the inadequacy of                   extinction. Therefore, we are listing the             adequate existing regulatory measures
                                                existing regulatory mechanisms (see the                 spiny angelshark as endangered under                  as annual catch limits have consistently
                                                discussion and analysis within this final               the ESA.                                              been set too high in the fishery. In fact,
                                                rule as well as the proposed rule for                      We have determined that the                        if these catch limits are actually met by
                                                further information). Factors supporting                narrownose smoothhound shark is not                   fishermen, it would result in a continual
                                                this conclusion include: (1)                            presently in danger of extinction                     decline in the species through the
                                                Significantly reduced abundance and                     throughout its range, but likely to                   future. Therefore, while the species is
                                                biomass (e.g. declines in CPUE of up to                 become so in the foreseeable future from              not presently in danger of extinction, we
                                                58 percent in Argentina, biomass                        threats of overutilization and the                    find that it is likely to become so within
                                                declines of 77–81 percent in the                        inadequacy of existing regulatory                     the foreseeable future as it has already
                                                AUCFZ, and 85 percent decline in                        mechanisms (see the discussion and                    suffered declines in abundance from
                                                Brazilian populations); (2) declining                   analysis within this final rule as well as            historical overutilization, continues to
                                                population trends (e.g., in the AUCFZ,                  the proposed rule for further                         be heavily exploited throughout its
                                                abundance has been on a declining                       information). Factors supporting this                 range, and lacks adequate protection
                                                trend since the early 2000s, with current               conclusion include: (1) Moderate                      from these threats. Therefore, we are
                                                fishing mortality rates 65 percent higher               declines in abundance (e.g., most                     listing the narrownose smoothhound
                                                than what would attain maximum                          abundant houndshark in the Argentine
                                                                                                                                                              shark as threatened under the ESA.
                                                sustainable yield; in Brazil, annual rate               Sea yet declines in biomass of 36–47
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                of population decline was estimated at                  percent in AUCFZ, 85 percent decline                     Because we find that all six species
                                                16 percent in the mid-1990s); (3) high                  in a Brazilian winter migrant population              are either in danger of extinction or
                                                susceptibility to overfishing and                       and potential extirpation of local                    likely to become so within the
                                                vulnerability to depletion given the                    population); (2) potential stabilization of           foreseeable future throughout all of their
                                                species’ present demographic risks (e.g.,               biomass in AUCFZ (based on recent                     ranges, there is no need to evaluate any
                                                extremely low fecundity, low                            stock assessment data); (3) moderate                  of the species’ status in any portion of
                                                abundance and declining population                      susceptibility to overfishing and                     their range.


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00062   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                           21739

                                                Effects of Listing                                      by I. oxyrhynchus, R. horkelii, M.                    conservation benefits or species
                                                  Conservation measures provided for                    fasciatus, M. schmitti, S. guggenheim,                protection. Therefore, we do not intend
                                                species listed as endangered or                         and S. argentina as being entirely                    to issue section 4(d) regulations for the
                                                threatened under the ESA include                        outside U.S. jurisdiction, so we cannot               narrownose smoothhound shark.
                                                recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f));                   designate occupied critical habitat for
                                                                                                                                                              Identification of Those Activities That
                                                                                                        these species. We can designate critical
                                                Federal agency requirements to consult                                                                        Would Constitute a Violation of Section
                                                                                                        habitat in areas in the United States that
                                                with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA                                                                          9 of the ESA
                                                                                                        are unoccupied by the species if the
                                                to ensure their actions are not likely to                                                                        On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS
                                                                                                        area(s) are determined to be essential for
                                                jeopardize the species or result in                                                                           published a policy (59 FR 34272) that
                                                                                                        the conservation of the species. The best
                                                adverse modification or destruction of                                                                        requires us to identify, to the maximum
                                                                                                        available scientific and commercial
                                                critical habitat should it be designated                                                                      extent practicable at the time a species
                                                                                                        information on these species does not
                                                (16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical                                                                     is listed, those activities that would or
                                                                                                        indicate that U.S. waters provide any
                                                habitat if prudent and determinable (16                                                                       would not likely constitute a violation
                                                                                                        specific essential biological function for
                                                U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions                                                                       of section 9 of the ESA.
                                                                                                        any of these species. Therefore, based
                                                on taking and certain other activities (16              on the best available information, we do                 The intent of this policy is to increase
                                                U.S.C. 1538, 1533(d)). In addition,                     not intend to designate critical habitat              public awareness of the effects of this
                                                recognition of the species’ imperiled                   for I. oxyrhynchus, R. horkelii, M.                   listing on proposed and ongoing
                                                status through listing promotes                         fasciatus, M. schmitti, S. guggenheim,                activities within the species’ ranges.
                                                conservation actions by Federal and                     and S. argentina.                                     Activities that we believe could (subject
                                                State agencies, foreign entities, private                                                                     to the exemptions set forth in 16 U.S.C.
                                                groups, and individuals.                                ESA Section 9 and 4(d) Prohibitions                   1539) result in a violation of section 9
                                                Identifying Section 7 Consultation                         Because we are listing I. oxyrhynchus,             prohibitions for the five endangered
                                                Requirements                                            R. horkelii, M. fasciatus, S. guggenheim,             species include, but are not limited to,
                                                                                                        and S. argentina as endangered, all of                the following:
                                                   Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2))               the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the               (1) Possessing, delivering,
                                                of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS                               ESA will apply to these species. These                transporting, or shipping any
                                                regulations (50 CFR part 402) require                   include prohibitions against the import               individual, part (dead or alive), or
                                                Federal agencies to consult with us to                  and export of any endangered species;                 product taken in violation of section
                                                ensure that activities they authorize,                  the sale and offering for sale of such                9(a)(1);
                                                fund, or carry out are not likely to                    species in interstate or foreign                         (2) Delivering, receiving, carrying,
                                                jeopardize the continued existence of                   commerce; the delivery, receipt,                      transporting, or shipping in interstate or
                                                listed species or destroy or adversely                  carriage, transport, or shipment of such              foreign commerce any individual, part,
                                                modify critical habitat. It is unlikely that            species in interstate or foreign                      or product in the course of a commercial
                                                the listing of these species under the                  commerce and in the course of a                       activity;
                                                ESA will increase the number of section                 commercial activity; and the ‘‘take’’ of                 (3) Selling or offering for sale in
                                                7 consultations because these species                   these species within the U.S., within the             interstate or foreign commerce any
                                                occur entirely outside of the United                    U.S. territorial seas, or on the high seas.           individual, part, or product except
                                                States and are unlikely to be affected by               Take is defined as ‘‘to harass, harm,                 antique articles at least 100 years old;
                                                Federal actions.                                        pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,               and
                                                Critical Habitat                                        capture, or collect, or to attempt to                    (4) Importing or exporting these
                                                                                                        engage in any such conduct.’’ These                   species or any part or product of these
                                                   Critical habitat is defined in section 3             prohibitions apply to all persons subject             species.
                                                of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1)                  to the jurisdiction of the United States.                We emphasize that whether a
                                                The specific areas within the                              In the case of threatened species, ESA             violation results from a particular
                                                geographical area occupied by a species,                section 4(d) requires the Secretary to                activity is entirely dependent upon the
                                                at the time it is listed in accordance                  issue regulations deemed necessary and                facts and circumstances of each
                                                with the ESA, on which are found those                  advisable for the conservation of the                 incident. Further, an activity not listed
                                                physical or biological features (a)                     species. We have evaluated the needs of               may in fact constitute or result in a
                                                essential to the conservation of the                    and threats to the narrownose                         violation.
                                                species and (b) that may require special                smoothhound shark and have
                                                management considerations or                            determined that protective regulations                Identification of Those Activities That
                                                protection; and (2) specific areas outside              pursuant to section 4(d) are not                      Would Not Likely Constitute a Violation
                                                the geographical area occupied by a                     currently necessary and advisable for                 of Section 9 of the ESA
                                                species at the time it is listed upon a                 the conservation of the species. The                     Although the determination of
                                                determination that such areas are                       main threats identified for the species               whether any given activity constitutes a
                                                essential for the conservation of the                   are overutilization and inadequate                    violation is fact dependent, we consider
                                                species. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA                  existing regulatory mechanisms. The                   the following actions, depending on the
                                                (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that,                threat of overutilization is primarily a              circumstances, as being unlikely to
                                                to the extent prudent and determinable,                 result of heavy fishing pressure by                   violate the prohibitions in ESA section
                                                critical habitat be designated                          foreign industrial, commercial and                    9: (1) Take authorized by, and carried
                                                concurrently with the listing of a                      artisanal fisheries. Because the                      out in accordance with the terms and
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                species. However, critical habitat shall                narrownose smoothhound occurs                         conditions of, an ESA section
                                                not be designated in foreign countries or               entirely outside of the United States, is             10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for
                                                other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50               not targeted or caught by U.S.                        purposes of scientific research or the
                                                CFR 424.12(g)).                                         fishermen, or threatened by commercial                enhancement of the propagation or
                                                   The best available scientific and                    trade with the United States, extending               survival of the species; and (2)
                                                commercial data as discussed above                      the section 9(a) prohibitions to this                 continued possession of parts and
                                                identify the geographical areas occupied                species will not result in added                      products that were in possession at the


                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00063   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                21740              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

                                                time of listing. Such parts and products                 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory                          Dated: May 4, 2017.
                                                may be non-commercially exported or                      Flexibility Act, and Paperwork                           Alan D. Risenhoover,
                                                imported; however the importer or                        Reduction Act                                            Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
                                                exporter must be able to provide                            As noted in the Conference Report on                  Regulatory Programs, National Marine
                                                evidence to show that the parts or                       the 1982 amendments to the ESA,                          Fisheries Service.
                                                products meet the criteria of ESA                        economic impacts cannot be considered                      For the reasons set out in the
                                                section 9(b)(1) (i.e., held in a controlled              when assessing the status of a species.                  preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are
                                                environment at the time of listing, in a                 Therefore, the economic analysis                         amended as follows:
                                                non-commercial activity).                                requirements of the Regulatory
                                                                                                         Flexibility Act are not applicable to the                PART 223—THREATENED MARINE
                                                References                                               listing process. In addition, this final                 AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
                                                  A complete list of the references used                 rule is exempt from review under
                                                in this final rule is available upon                     Executive Order 12866. This final rule                   ■ 1. The authority citation for part 223
                                                                                                         does not contain a collection-of-                        continues to read as follows:
                                                request (see ADDRESSES).
                                                                                                         information requirement for the
                                                                                                                                                                     Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart
                                                Classification                                           purposes of the Paperwork Reduction                      B, § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C.
                                                                                                         Act.                                                     1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
                                                National Environmental Policy Act
                                                                                                         Executive Order 13132, Federalism                        § 223.206(d)(9).
                                                  The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in                       In accordance with E.O. 13132, we                      ■  2. In § 223.102, amend the table in
                                                section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the                         determined that this final rule does not                 paragraph (e) by adding a new entry for
                                                information that may be considered                       have significant Federalism effects and                  ‘‘Shark, narrownose smoothhound’’ in
                                                when assessing species for listing. Based                that a Federalism assessment is not                      alphabetical order by common name
                                                on this limitation of criteria for a listing             required.                                                under the ‘‘Fishes’’ table subheading to
                                                decision and the opinion in Pacific                                                                               read as follows:
                                                Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d                     List of Subjects
                                                829 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has                            50 CFR Part 223                                          § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened
                                                concluded that ESA listing actions are                                                                            marine and anadromous species.
                                                                                                           Endangered and threatened species,
                                                not subject to the environmental                                                                                  *     *     *     *    *
                                                                                                         Exports, Imports, Transportation.
                                                assessment requirements of the National                                                                             (e) The threatened species under the
                                                Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).                         50 CFR Part 224                                          jurisdiction of the Secretary of
                                                                                                           Endangered and threatened species.                     Commerce are:

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


                                                           *                      *                          *                       *                       *                       *               *
                                                         FISHES

                                                         *                      *                          *                       *                   *                 *                           *
                                                Shark, narrownose          Mustelus schmitti ......     Entire species ........... [Insert Federal Register page where the                      NA               NA
                                                  smoothhound.                                                                        document begins], May 10, 2017.

                                                           *                      *                          *                       *                       *                       *               *
                                                    1 Species
                                                            includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7,
                                                1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).


                                                PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE                               ■ 4. In § 224.101, paragraph (h), amend                  § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered
                                                AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES                                   the table by adding new entries for five                 marine and anadromous species.
                                                                                                         species in alphabetical order by                         *     *     *     *    *
                                                ■ 3. The authority citation for part 224                 common name under the ‘‘Fishes’’ table
                                                continues to read as follows:                                                                                       (h) The endangered species under the
                                                                                                         subheading to read as follows:                           jurisdiction of the Secretary of
                                                  Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16
                                                U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
                                                                                                                                                                  Commerce are:

                                                                                  Species 1
                                                                                                                                                                                         Critical        ESA
                                                                                                                                          Citation(s) for listing determination(s)
                                                                                                         Description of listed                                                           habitat         rules
                                                     Common name               Scientific name                  entity
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                          *                       *                          *                       *                       *                       *               *
                                                        FISHES
                                                Angelshark, Argen-         Squatina argentina ...       Entire species ...........   [Insert Federal Register page where the                    NA               NA
                                                  tine.                                                                                 document begins], May 10, 2017.




                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014    13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000     Frm 00064   Fmt 4700    Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1


                                                                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations                                               21741

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

                                                        *                        *                        *                       *                   *                 *                        *
                                                Angelshark, spiny .....    Squatina                    Entire species ........... [Insert Federal Register page where the                   NA               NA
                                                                             guggenheim.                                             document begins], May 10, 2017.

                                                          *                     *                         *                       *                   *                 *                        *
                                                Guitarfish, Brazilian ..   Rhinobatos horkelii ...     Entire species ........... [Insert Federal Register page where the                   NA               NA
                                                                                                                                     document begins], May 10, 2017.

                                                         *                       *                        *                       *                   *                 *                        *
                                                Shark, daggernose ...      Isogomphodon                Entire species ........... [Insert Federal Register page where the                   NA               NA
                                                                             oxyrhynchus.                                            document begins], May 10, 2017.

                                                          *                     *                         *                       *                   *                 *                        *
                                                Shark, striped             Mustelus fasciatus ....     Entire species ........... [Insert Federal Register page where the                   NA               NA
                                                  smoothhound.                                                                       document begins], May 10, 2017.

                                                          *                      *                        *                      *                       *                       *               *
                                                   1 Speciesincludes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7,
                                                1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).


                                                [FR Doc. 2017–09416 Filed 5–9–17; 8:45 am]
                                                BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                           VerDate Sep<11>2014   13:27 May 09, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00065   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\10MYR1.SGM   10MYR1



Document Created: 2017-05-10 00:00:43
Document Modified: 2017-05-10 00:00:43
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThis final rule is effective June 9, 2017.
ContactMaggie Miller, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8403. Copies of the petition, status review reports, Federal Register notices, and the list of references are available on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ pr/species/petition81.htm.
FR Citation82 FR 21722 
RIN Number0648-XE18
CFR Citation50 CFR 223
50 CFR 224
CFR AssociatedEndangered and Threatened Species; Exports; Imports and Transportation

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR