Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 19 Species and 3 Subpopulations of Sharks as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 69376-69391 [2013-27718]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69376-69391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 130926840-3840-01]
RIN 0648-XC898


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List 19 Species and 3 Subpopulations of Sharks as Threatened or 
Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act

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

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding, request for information.

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

SUMMARY: We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 19 
species and 3 subpopulations of sharks as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted for 9 species: Centrophorus 
harrissoni, Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Mustelus fasciatus, Mustelus 
schmitti, Squatina aculeata, Squatina argentina, Squatina guggenheim, 
Squatina oculata, and Squatina squatina. Therefore, we will conduct a 
status review of the nine species to determine if the petitioned action 
is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are 
soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to these 
petitioned species from any interested party. We find that the petition 
does not present substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 10 species 
and 3 subpopulations: Carcharhinus borneensis, Carcharhinus hemiodon, 
Carcharias taurus (Southwest Atlantic subpopulation), Cetorhinus 
maximus (North Pacific subpopulation), Cetorhinus maximus (Northeast 
Atlantic subpopulation), Haploblepharus kistnasamyi, Hemitriakis 
leucoperiptera, Holohalaelurus favus, Holohalaelurus punctatus, 
Lamiopsis temmincki, Squatina formosa, Squatina punctata, and Triakis 
acutipinna.

[[Page 69377]]


DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received 
by January 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, information, or data on this 
document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2013-0519, by any of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0159, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous), although submitting comments anonymously will prevent NMFS 
from contacting you if NMFS has difficulty retrieving your submission. 
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of the petition and related materials are available upon 
request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East 
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth 
Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under 
the ESA and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Copies of this 
petition are available from us (see ADDRESSES). This finding addresses 
the 19 species and 3 subpopulations of sharks identified as part of 
this petition. The 19 shark species and 3 subpopulations considered in 
this finding are: Carcharhinus borneensis, Carcharhinus hemiodon, 
Carcharias taurus (Southwest Atlantic Subpopulation), Centrophorus 
harrissoni, Cetorhinus maximus (North Pacific Subpopulation), 
Cetorhinus maximus (Northeast Atlantic Subpopulation), Haploblepharus 
kistnasamyi, Hemitriakis leucoperiptera, Holohalaelurus favus, 
Holohalaelurus punctatus, Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Lamiopsis 
temmincki, Mustelus fasciatus, Mustelus schmitti, Squatina aculeata, 
Squatina argentina, Squatina formosa, Squatina guggenheim, Squatina 
oculata, Squatina punctata, Squatina squatina, and Triakis acutipinna.
    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days 
of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, 
the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish 
the finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we 
find that substantial scientific or commercial information in a 
petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a ``positive 
90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a review of the 
status of the species concerned, which includes conducting a 
comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information. Within 12 months of receiving the petition, we must 
conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the 
petitioned action is warranted. Because the finding at the 12-month 
stage is based on a significantly more thorough review of the available 
information, a ``may be warranted'' finding at the 90-day stage does 
not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which 
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, 
any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint 
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') 
policy (DPS Policy) clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the 
phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing, 
delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; 
February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if 
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 
1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing 
regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered 
based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) 
factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or 
predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other 
natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 
CFR 424.14(b)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of 
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the 
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe 
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When 
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, 
we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the 
administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any 
common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative 
justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on 
available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the 
species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides 
information regarding the status of the species over all or a 
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the 
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic 
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or 
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
    At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based 
upon the information in the petition including its references, and the 
information readily available in our files. We do not conduct 
additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties 
outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will 
accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the 
information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted 
scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files 
that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, 
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information 
that is susceptible to more

[[Page 69378]]

than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available 
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long 
as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude that it 
supports the petitioner's assertions. Conclusive information indicating 
the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required 
to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of 
specific information alone negates a positive 90-day finding, if a 
reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself 
suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we 
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either 
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate 
whether the information presented in the petition, along with the 
information readily available in our files, indicates that the 
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under 
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the 
species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this 
may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' 
status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to 
the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic 
factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at 
issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial 
structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical 
range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential 
contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the 
species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic 
risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 
4(a)(1).
    Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to 
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these 
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species 
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad 
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification 
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute 
substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for 
information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed 
to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative 
fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative 
response.
    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may 
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. 
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a 
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by 
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because 
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such 
classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the 
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction 
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
    In this petition the petitioner relies almost exclusively on the 
risk classifications of the IUCN as the source of information on the 
status of each petitioned species. All of the petitioned species are 
listed as ``endangered'' or ``critically endangered'' on the IUCN 
Redlist and the petitioner notes this as an explicit consideration in 
offering petitions on these species. However, as mentioned above, 
species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent, and 
data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of 
uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, we instead 
consider the information on threats identified by the petitioners, as 
well as the data on which they are based, as they pertain to each 
petitioned species.

Analysis of the Petition

    With the exception of the North Pacific subpopulation of basking 
shark (Cetorhinus maximus), the petitioned shark species and 
subpopulations are found exclusively in foreign waters. The 
introductory part of the shark section of the petition provides a 
general description of threats following the five ESA Section 4(a)(1) 
factors and is meant to apply to all of the petitioned species. This 
section discusses the following threats: Habitat destruction from 
trawling and human population growth, loss of coral reef habitat, 
overutilization by fisheries, disease, lack of adequate existing 
regulatory mechanisms, biological characteristics that increase 
susceptibility to threats, restricted ranges, climate change, and 
synergistic effects. The species-specific information section follows 
and provides information largely from the IUCN assessment for each 
species. This section includes fewer than three pages of unique 
material for over half of the petitioned species and provides 
information on the species' Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species (CITES) and IUCN status, range, and habitat 
information. Entries for only a few species provide species-specific 
population status or trend information. We consider this information 
separately in the ``Species-specific information'' section below.

General Information

    The petition clearly indicates the administrative measure 
recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species 
involved. The petition also contains a narrative justification for the 
recommended measure and provides limited information on the species' 
and subpopulations' geographic distribution, habitat use, and threats. 
For a number of the species and subpopulations, the petitioner fails to 
provide any information on past and present numbers or population 
status. A synopsis of our analysis of the information provided in the 
petition and readily available in our files is provided below.
    Based on the information presented in the petition, along with the 
information readily available in our files, we find that 20 of the 21 
petitioned shark species constitute taxonomically valid species 
eligible for listing under the ESA.
    The introductory threats discussion is general, with only 
occasional references to specific petitioned species and subpopulations 
with the threats later repeated in the species-specific section 
(discussed below). Some of the general threats discussion are not 
clearly or causally linked to the petitioned species (e.g., discussion 
of dead zones yet no identification that these occur in the petitioned 
species' ranges; discussion of the threat of climate change with a 
focus on coral reef habitat loss when only one petitioned species was 
identified as found on coral reef habitats (Haploblepharus 
kistnasamyi)). The petition also references worldwide human population 
growth as a threat for all of the petitioned species. However,

[[Page 69379]]

a rising human population by itself may not necessarily be a threat to 
a species, if, for instance, human activities are managed such that 
habitat is preserved or species are not over-exploited. Similarly, 
human-mediated threats can occur at a level that renders a species in 
danger of extinction in the absence of a growing human population. 
Thus, information that the population is growing, on its own, does not 
indicate that the growing human population is a threat.
    The petition provides a discussion of disease as a threat, 
presenting it in terms of accumulations of mercury, persistent organic 
compounds, heavy metals and other pollutants in sharks. However, the 
studies that the petition references as support are based primarily on 
non-petitioned shark species in locations outside of the petitioned 
shark species' ranges. For example, in their discussion of the threat 
of mercury (Hg) accumulation, the petitioners cite Mull et al. (2012). 
This study focused solely on white sharks found in the Southern 
California Bight (SCB). The authors concluded that geographic location 
is a primary driver of the level of observed concentrations of 
contaminants in sharks, with those sharks found in contamination hot 
spots (such as the SCB and Mediterranean Sea) likely to have higher 
tissue concentrations of contaminants. According to the authors, 
``Sharks from the SCB exhibited elevated muscle levels of total Hg, 
second only to adult Smooth Hammerheads, Gulper Sharks (Centrophorus 
granulosus), Longnose Spurdog (Squalus blainvilii), and Kitefin Sharks 
(Dalatias licha) from the Ionian Sea.'' Sharks from the SCB also 
exhibited concentrations of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), much higher than those found 
elsewhere in the world. However, according to Mull et al. (2012), it is 
unclear if the high levels of contaminants in the white sharks are 
causing deleterious physiological effects or affecting survival or 
reproduction rates. We recently conducted an ESA status review of the 
Northeastern Pacific DPS of white sharks, and in our evaluation of 
threats from pollutants, we noted that no hepatic lesions or other 
visible effects have been observed in the DPS (Dewar et al., 2013). 
Additionally, the status review report notes that ``[i]ndications that 
high tissue contaminant levels are not causing problems at a population 
level are the apparent increase in other predators that have similarly 
high contaminant levels including the coastal stock of bottlenose 
dolphins, California sea lions and harbor seals'' (Dewar et al., 2013). 
Ultimately, we concluded that the impacts of pollution and disease are 
not significant threats to the Northeastern Pacific DPS of white 
sharks. As these white sharks, which likely have some of the highest 
levels of contaminants compared to sharks found elsewhere in the world, 
were not found to be threatened or endangered due to pollutants, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the petitioned species, which are not found 
in the SCB and thus likely to have lower levels of contaminants, are 
not at risk of extinction from these pollutants.
    Likewise, the petitioner cites Lyle (1984; 1986) as evidence of 
threats to the petitioned species based on the accumulation of Hg; 
however, the paper examined shark species that utilize waters of the 
Northern Territory of Australia. None of the petitioned shark species 
are found in these waters. In addition, the Lyle papers made no mention 
of the effects of bioaccumulation on the survival or reproductive 
capacity of the examined shark species. Instead, the papers simply 
discuss the rate and level of Hg and selenium concentrations in sharks, 
with a focus on human consumption, not survival of shark species.
    Finally, the petitioners reference Storelli et al. (2003) for 
evidence of threats to the petitioned species based on accumulations of 
PCBs and arsenic. The Storelli et al. (2003) paper examined hammerhead 
shark species (none of which were petitioned) in the Ionian Sea. The 
Ionian Sea, as mentioned above, is recognized as a geographical 
location with exceptionally high levels of Hg contamination due to 
urban, industrial, and natural source inputs (Storelli et al., 2003; 
Mull et al., 2012). Only three of the petitioned species (Squatina 
aculeata, S. oculata, and S. squatina) may have current ranges that 
extend into the Mediterranean Sea. However, Storelli et al. (2003), 
state ``[i]t is hypothesed [sic] that the large size of elasmobranch 
liver provides a greater ability to eliminate organic toxicants than in 
other fishes.'' While the paper mentions that ``the presence of PCBs 
and methylmercury, coupled with their synergistic activity, may make 
these organisms susceptible to long-term toxic effects'', it also 
states that in marine mammals selenium has a detoxifying effect against 
Hg intoxication when the molar ratio between the two metals is close to 
one, and the authors observed similar ratios in shark liver 
``indicating that this particular mechanism may also be valid for 
sharks'' (Storelli et al., 2003). With no information in our files, or 
provided by the petitioner, on baseline concentrations or rate of 
accumulation of pollutants in the petitioned shark species, or even 
conclusive evidence of negative effects of accumulation in terms of 
survival or reproductive capacity of the shark species from the 
referenced studies, we find that the petitioner has not provided 
substantial information that would lead a reasonable person to conclude 
that the threat of disease from pollutants (Hg, persistent organic 
compounds, heavy metals, and other pollutants) is contributing to the 
petitioned shark species' risk of extinction.
    In the regulatory mechanisms discussion, the petitioner argues that 
there are no adequate regulatory mechanisms because the species are 
listed as endangered or critically endangered by IUCN, and none of the 
populations have increasing or even stable population trends. However, 
generalized evidence of declining populations per se is neither 
evidence of declines large enough to infer extinction risk that may 
meet the definition of either threatened or endangered under the ESA, 
nor evidence of inadequate regulatory mechanisms, since sustainable 
management regimes can have periods of declining populations.
    The petition notes that only one species, with two petitioned 
subpopulations (Cetorhinus maximus), is listed on CITES Appendix II and 
references the limitations inherent in CITES listings from the coral 
section of the petition. According to Article II of CITES, species 
listed on Appendix II are those that are ``not necessarily now 
threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade in specimens 
of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid 
utilization incompatible with their survival.'' Based on the CITES 
definitions and standards for listing species on Appendix II, the 
species' actual listing on Appendix II is not itself an inherent 
indication that these species may now warrant threatened or endangered 
status under the ESA. Species classifications under CITES and the ESA 
are not equivalent, and criteria used to evaluate species are not the 
same. The petitioner also makes generalized statements about shark 
finning bans and other measures of protections in this section, but 
does not provide any details or references. We do not consider these 
general and unsubstantiated statements as substantial information that 
listing may be warranted due to an inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 
for all of the petitioned species. Where the petition provides species-
specific information on

[[Page 69380]]

this threat, that information is considered in the individual species 
sections below. Likewise, biological characteristics, such as slow 
growth and reproductive rates, and/or range restrictions, do not 
automatically pose threats to all of the petitioned species. These 
biological and ecological factors are examined on a species-specific 
basis below, if information is available.
    While the information in this introductory section is otherwise 
largely accurate and suggests concern for the status of sharks in 
general, the broad statements and generalizations of threats for all 
petitioned shark species and subpopulations do not constitute 
substantial information that listing may be warranted for any of the 
petitioned species or subpopulations. There is little information in 
this introductory section indicating that particular petitioned species 
may be responding in a negative fashion to any of the discussed 
threats. The few instances in the introductory section which 
specifically link threats to a particular petitioned species or 
subpopulation will be considered in our discussion of threats to that 
particular species or subpopulation.
    The next part of the petition consists of individual species 
accounts for each of the 22 petitioned sharks. For many of the species 
and subpopulations, the information is extracted directly from the IUCN 
assessment, with the petitioner providing the assessment as an 
accompanying exhibit and a list of references cited by the IUCN 
assessment. Below we analyze this species-specific information in light 
of the standards of the ESA and our policies as described above.

Species Descriptions and Information

    Carcharhinus borneensis, commonly referred to as the Borneo shark, 
is an inshore coastal shark that appears to be found exclusively off 
Sarawak, Malaysia on Borneo. It is a small shark, with an observed 
maximum size of 87 cm (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). Prior 
to 1937, it was only known from five confirmed specimens (four of which 
were collected from Borneo, and one from China) (Compagno, 2009; White 
et al., 2010). As such, the life history and ecology of this species is 
largely unknown (Compagno, 2009; White et al., 2010).
    The petition states that the species is very rare, and specifically 
identifies commercial overutilization as a threat based solely on the 
general statement in the IUCN assessment that identifies Borneo as an 
area heavily exploited by artisanal and commercial fisheries (Compagno, 
2009). No references were included as support for this statement, and 
neither the petitioner nor the IUCN assessment provides any information 
on catch statistics or operations of Borneo fisheries. Instead, the 
assertion that fishing activities have detrimentally affected the 
species seems based solely on the species' rarity in historical 
records. However, there could be a number of other reasons for the 
species' absence in fishing records, such as: The species' range does 
not coincide with fishery operations or survey areas; the fishing gear 
employed is not effective at catching the species; the species may have 
been caught but was released if it was not of commercial value; its 
life history is unknown, so it is possible that this species may 
migrate to other areas during fishing seasons; etc. In other words, a 
species that is persistently rare in the historical records does not 
necessarily mean that it has declined or is in danger of extinction. In 
fact, in this case, recent surveys in the region have actually found 
the species in ``substantial numbers'' near Mukah in Sarawak (White et 
al., 2010). The 2006 Malaysia National Plan of Action (NPOA) for sharks 
supports this finding, noting that C. borneensis was the third most 
abundant species landed in Mukah, comprising around 9 percent of the 
shark landings (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). This new 
information from our files, not considered in the IUCN assessment 
(which relied on information prior to 2006), suggests that the Borneo 
shark is more common than previously thought.
    The petitioner also contends that there is a complete lack of 
protections for the species. We do not necessarily consider a lack of 
species-specific protections as a threat to the species or even 
problematic in all cases. For example, management measures that 
regulate other species or fisheries operations may indirectly help to 
minimize threats to the petitioned species and may be adequate to 
prevent it from being at risk of extinction. Again, we look for 
substantial information indicating that not only is the particular 
species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in 
a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that 
negative response. According to the Malaysia NPOA, sharks are not 
targeted by fishermen but are caught as bycatch with other commercially 
important species (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). In fact, 
shark and ray landings constitute only around 2.2 percent of the total 
marine landings of the demersal fishery that operates within Malaysian 
waters (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). In Mukah, C. 
borneensis is primarily landed in coastal gillnets. In terms of 
fisheries regulations, Malaysia has a number of fishing gear, method, 
and area restrictions that have been in place to control the 
exploitation of fishery resources. For example, there is currently a 
complete ban on fishing methods that are destructive to fish resources 
and their environment, such as dynamite, pair trawling, and push nets 
(Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). The pukat pari, a drift gill 
net with a mesh size larger than 25.4 cm that was used to catch large 
sized sharks and rays, has been banned since 1990 (Department of 
Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). As the Malaysia NPOA notes, these nationwide 
bans on fishing gear and methods have helped reduce the exploitation of 
adult shark and ray species and provided some conservation benefits to 
the breeding stocks.
    Little information is known about the life history and biology of 
C. borneensis. It was previously considered to be a rare species, with 
the assumption that its absence in records was due to historical 
overutilization of the species; however, recent information suggests 
otherwise. In fact, the species is substantially more abundant than 
previously thought, indicating that it is either experiencing an 
increasing population trend or that prior sampling of the species was 
inadequate. The species is now commonly landed in part of its range. 
We, therefore, find no evidence that would suggest that the threat of 
overutilization or inadequate regulatory measures is putting this 
species at an increased extinction risk and conclude that the species-
specific information presented in the petition does not constitute 
substantial information that listing may be warranted for C. 
borneensis.
    Carcharhinus hemiodon, commonly referred to as the Pondicherry 
shark, is a rarely observed shark thought to occur inshore on 
continental and insular shelves (Compagno et al., 2003). The 
petitioner, citing the IUCN assessment (Compagno et al., 2003), notes 
that the species could possibly be extinct, as the last record of the 
shark was in 1979 in India ``despite detailed surveys in Borneo, 
Philippines, and Indonesia.'' However, more recent surveys in India's 
economic exclusive zone (EEZ), conducted from 1984-2006, have 
identified the species as being present in these waters. The petition 
also states that the species is represented by ``fewer than twenty 
specimens in museum collections, most of which were captured before 
1900.'' However, it was also recorded for the first time in Malaysian 
waters during shark surveys

[[Page 69381]]

conducted from 1999 to 2004 (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006), 
suggesting the range of the shark may be wider than previously assumed. 
Prior to 1990, C. hemiodon was reported as common in the Guandong 
Province and Fujian Province in China, but was not recorded during 
market and interview surveys conducted in these shark-fishing provinces 
from 2006 to 2008 (Lam and de Mitcheson, 2010).
    Similar to C. borneensis, the petition attributes the rarity of 
this species to commercial overutilization, although it acknowledges 
that the population trend, past and present abundance of the species, 
and the basic biology and life history of the species are unknown. As 
mentioned previously, rarity does not necessarily mean that a species 
is threatened or in danger of extinction. The condition of being rare 
is an important factor to consider when evaluating a species' risk of 
extinction; however, it does not by itself indicate the likelihood of 
extinction of that species, nor does the condition of being rare 
constitute substantial information that listing under the ESA may be 
warranted. We look for information indicating that the species is 
exposed to a threat, but also that the species may be responding in a 
negative fashion to that threat. While we acknowledge that fishing has 
and is occurring in areas where this species has been documented, the 
petitioner does not provide any information indicating that this 
species was (or is) targeted or caught as bycatch in these fisheries in 
numbers that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it has 
declined or that listing may be warranted. In fact, the IUCN assessment 
even acknowledges that ``market surveys have failed to locate it'' 
(Compagno et al. 2003). In addition, the petition claims that there are 
no conservation measures in place for the species, yet this species is 
currently listed under Schedule I of India's Wildlife Protection Act 
(1972), which provides it absolute protection in India's waters (John 
and Varghese, 2009). The petitioner has failed to provide any 
information that indicates current regulatory measures are a threat to 
the species.
    Finally, the range of this shark species is poorly known. As such, 
the rare occurrence of the shark in historical records may simply be a 
reflection of limited sampling efforts in the assumed range of the 
shark. As mentioned above, new survey data have in fact recorded the 
shark in waters where previously it was not known to occur. The IUCN 
assessment also notes that the species has been recorded from a number 
of ``widely-separated'' sites, suggesting that this species may exhibit 
migratory behavior and may not be limited to certain locations. In 
conclusion, we find that the species-specific information presented in 
the petition does not constitute substantial information that listing 
may be warranted for C. hemiodon.
    Centrophorus harrissoni, commonly referred to as Harrison's 
dogfish, is a demersal shark found on the upper to middle continental 
slope off eastern Australia, and on seamounts and ridges north of New 
Zealand (Pogonoski and Pollard, 2003). The petitioner relies on the 
IUCN assessment (Pogonoski and Pollard, 2003) for its information, 
noting that the population size of this species is unknown but the 
trend is decreasing. The IUCN assessment states that the major threats 
to the species are from demersal trawling (by Australia's South East 
Trawl Fishery (SETF)) and droplining (by the New South Wales fisheries) 
along the continental slope. The shark is commercially valuable and 
sold for its flesh and liver oil (Graham et al., 2001; Pogonoski and 
Pollard, 2003). The petition contends that overutilization for 
commercial purposes has contributed to the decline of the species and 
currently remains a threat to its existence. According to Graham et al. 
(2001), the demersal trawl-fishery on the upper continental slope off 
New South Wales (NSW) began in 1968 but rapidly expanded between 1975 
and 1980 following exploratory trawling conducted by the NSW 
government's fisheries research vessel, Kapala. By the early 1980s, 
more than 100 trawlers were landing around 15,000 mt of fish per year, 
with the majority of fish caught on the upper continental slope. 
Although sharks were never targeted, some species were fairly abundant, 
with the larger species, including the dogfish sharks, retained as 
bycatch. By the late 1980s, there were substantial declines in catch 
rates of certain fish species, and in 1992, total allowable catches and 
transferrable quotas were introduced into the fisheries operating in 
the region. However, no such management measures were created for 
sharks, which Graham et al. (2001) attributes to their low abundance 
and economic value. In an effort to determine the relative change in 
shark abundance, Graham et al. (2001) examined the Kapala exploratory 
trawl data from 1976-1977 and data from stratified surveys from 1996-
1997 (conducted by the same vessel and gear using equivalent 
methodology). The surveys were conducted on the upper continental slope 
trawl grounds, between 200 and 650 m depths, off central and southern 
NSW. Results showed that 13 of the 15 examined shark species or species 
groups saw substantial declines, including Harrison's dogfish (Graham 
et al., 2001). In three of the 1976 surveys, Harrisson's dogfish were 
lumped with little gulper sharks (C. uyato) and so were analyzed as a 
group. These species were fairly abundant across all depths on all 
grounds, with an average catch rate estimated at 126 kg/h (Graham et 
al., 2001). These species also represented around 9, 18, and 32 percent 
of the total fish catches in the NSW trawl areas off Sydney, Ulladulla, 
and Eden, respectively. By 1996-1997, the two species represented less 
than 1 percent of the total catch weight from these areas, with an 
average catch rate of 0.4 kg/h. This translates to a decline of more 
than 99 percent between 1976-77 and 1996-1997 (Graham et al., 2001). 
Given that the 1976-77 survey was conducted when the demersal trawl 
fishery was just beginning, Graham et al. (2001) attributes the 
subsequent decline in Harrison's dogfish primarily to the fishing 
activities of the SETF. The authors, and the petitioner, also note that 
the species' low fecundity (thought to produce only one to two pups 
every 1 to 2 years) and assumed late maturity have likely hindered its 
ability to recover from this decline.
    In terms of current regulatory measures, the petition notes that 
there have been some measures implemented that limit the catch of C. 
harrissoni in the SETF and require fishermen to land Centrophorus 
carcasses with their livers, but argues that these regulations are 
inadequate to protect the species from extinction. Instead, the 
petitioner states that catch should be completely prohibited for a 
species that has exhibited such drastic population declines.
    Based on the best available information, we find that the threat of 
overutilization by fisheries, inadequate existing regulatory 
mechanisms, and other natural factors may be impacting Harrison's 
dogfish populations to a degree that raises concerns of a risk of 
extinction, with evidence of severe population declines throughout the 
species' observed range. We conclude that the petition presents 
substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned 
action of listing C. harrissoni as threatened or endangered may be 
warranted.
    Haploblepharus kistnasamyi is a rare shark species, known only from 
three adult specimens, and is thought to be endemic to South Africa 
(Human, 2009a). These known specimens have all occurred inshore, from 
the intertidal zone to 30 m depth, and within a small

[[Page 69382]]

area (less than 100 km\2\) surrounding Durban, KwaZulu-Natal (Human, 
2009a). The species was previously assumed to be a form of 
Haploblepharus edwardsii, but in 2006 was named as a new species based 
on morphological differences (Human, 2009a). The petition acknowledges 
that the population size, trend, and life history of the species are 
virtually unknown.
    The petition identifies habitat degradation, overutilization (as 
bycatch in fisheries), and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
as the main threats to the species' continued existence, and relies 
primarily on the information within the IUCN assessment (Human, 2009a) 
for its support. The petition, quoting the IUCN assessment, states that 
Durban is experiencing increasing industrialization and contends that 
the resultant industrial waste output, pollution, and land development 
activities are degrading the only known habitat of H. kistnasamyi to 
the point where its continued existence is at risk. The petitioner also 
notes that the sharks' restricted range leaves it vulnerable to these 
localized activities and stochastic events. However, neither the IUCN 
assessment nor the petition provides any supporting information (or 
references) for these statements, such as information on the level of 
development in the area, the amount of waste or pollutants entering the 
waters surrounding Durban (or water quality data), or evidence that the 
shark species is responding in a negative fashion to this threat. 
Likewise, the petitioner states that bycatch is a threat to the species 
and cites the IUCN assessment, which notes that the area around Durban 
is heavily fished, especially by the prawn fisheries, but provides no 
additional information, references, or data on this fishery. Without 
further information on these fisheries, such as their areas of 
operation, gear and methods, or data on catch and bycatch, it is 
unclear how the petitioner came to the conclusion that these fisheries 
are negatively affecting the abundance of H. kistnasamyi, especially in 
light of the significant unknowns surrounding the life history of H. 
kistnasamyi. In fact, there have recently been questions regarding the 
exact range of this species, as the IUCN assessment states that 
possible juveniles of the species have been recorded, but not yet 
verified, from the Eastern Cape to west of Mossel Bay, both also in 
South Africa. If these juveniles are identified as H. kistnasamyi, then 
this would provide evidence that the species is not as restricted in 
its range as previously thought, and especially highlights the need for 
more sampling and data to understand the species' life history and 
ecology.
    As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or 
identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not 
constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. In 
addition, the condition of being rare is an important factor to 
consider when evaluating a species' risk of extinction; however, it 
does not by itself indicate the likelihood of extinction of that 
species, nor does the condition of being rare constitute substantial 
information that listing under the ESA may be warranted. The fact that 
the species is considered rare could also be an invalid 
characterization of the species due to limited sampling. Because of 
these uncertainties, we look for substantial information within the 
petition and within our own files indicating that not only is the 
particular species exposed to a certain factor, but that the species 
may be responding in a negative fashion, and then we assess the 
potential significance of that negative response. We had no information 
on H. kistnasamyi or threats to the species in our own files. After 
evaluation of the species-specific information presented in the 
petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted for H. kistnasamyi.
    Hemitriakis leucoperiptera, commonly referred to as the whitefin 
topeshark, is an inshore tropical shark from Philippine waters. It is 
known only from two free-swimming individuals and, as such, there is 
little to no information regarding its life history, range, or 
population numbers. No other information is provided in the petition or 
available to us regarding past or present numbers or status of this 
species. Additionally, according to the IUCN assessment (Compagno, 
2005), there have been no confirmed records of the species' occurrence 
in over 50 years, indicating that the species may no longer be found in 
the wild. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve species that are in 
danger of or threatened with extinction. The definition of an 
endangered species is ``any species which is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' (Section 3(6)). 
Species that are already extinct are not protected by the ESA. A review 
of the best available scientific information provided by the petitioner 
suggests that H. leucoperiptera may no longer exist in the wild and may 
already be extinct. Given this available information, as well as the 
previous discussion about the deficiencies of the general threats 
information, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial 
information indicating that H. leucoperiptera may warrant listing as 
endangered or threatened under the ESA.
    Holohalaelurus favus, commonly referred to as the honeycomb izak or 
natal izak, is found within a restricted range along the east African 
coast, from Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa north to southern 
Mozambique. The petitioner, citing the IUCN assessment (Human, 2009b) 
notes that very little information is known about the habitat, ecology, 
population size and status of the shark, nor is this information 
available in our files. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, H. favus was 
commonly caught and recorded from fishing trawls (Human, 2009b). 
However, by the mid-1970s, it had seemingly disappeared; no longer 
showing up in trawl catches (Human, 2009b). The cause of the 
disappearance is unknown. Furthermore, a number of extensive surveys 
that have been conducted in the known range of H. favus, including 
biodiversity research cruises in 2002 and 2003, a survey cruise off 
Mozambique in 2007, and other more recent biodiversity trawl surveys, 
have failed to capture any specimens of the species (Human, 2009b), 
indicating that the species may no longer be found in the wild.
    The purpose of the ESA is to conserve species that are in danger of 
or threatened with extinction. The definition of an endangered species 
is ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' (Section 3(6)). Species that are 
already extinct are not protected by the ESA. A review of the best 
available scientific information provided by the petitioner suggests 
that H. favus may no longer exist in the wild and may already be 
extinct. Given this available information, as well as the previous 
discussion about the deficiencies of the general threats information, 
we conclude that the petition does not present substantial information 
indicating that H. favus may warrant listing as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA.
    Holohalaelurus punctatus, commonly referred to as the whitespotted 
izak or African spotted catshark, is endemic to the southwestern Indian 
Ocean. It may be found in depths of around 220-420 m off the coasts of 
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, southern Mozambique, and Madagascar. The 
petitioner, citing the IUCN assessment (Human, 2009c),

[[Page 69383]]

notes that very little information is known about the life history of 
the species and the population status throughout its range. 
Historically, the species was commonly caught by commercial and 
research bottom trawls off South Africa and Mozambique in the late 
1960s and early 1970s. However, similar to H. favus, catch of the 
species abruptly declined. The cause of this decline in catch is 
unknown. Only a single specimen has been collected since 1972, despite 
recent biodiversity trawl surveys that have been conducted off 
Mozambique (Human, 2009c). However, the IUCN assessment notes that the 
species also occurs off Madagascar and its population status and 
structure in this part of its range is unknown (Human, 2009c). It also 
states that given the species' presumed depth range, it may be 
protected from local Madagascar fishermen, with the deep waters off 
Madagascar thus serving as a possible refuge for this species. However, 
due to a ``complete lack of information from this part of its range'' 
the IUCN assessment concluded that the species could not be assessed in 
Madagascar (Human, 2009c). Even with this substantial lack of 
information on the species, including its basic life history, 
population size, structure, status, and likely range, the petitioner 
contends that the species is in danger of extinction from threats of 
inadequate regulatory measures (due to a lack of conservation measures 
for the species) and threats that have yet to be identified.
    As stated previously, we do not necessarily consider a lack of 
species-specific protections as a threat to the species. For example, 
management measures that regulate other species or fisheries operations 
may indirectly help to minimize threats to the petitioned species and 
may be adequate to prevent its extinction. The petition has not 
provided any information that would lead a reasonable person to assume 
the abrupt decline in catch was due to a lack of adequate regulatory 
measures, nor do we have that information in our files. Additionally, 
the IUCN assessment, cited by the petitioner, highlights the 
uncertainty surrounding the cause of the observed reduction in catches 
of the shark off Mozambique when it states ``[i]t is not known whether 
the reduced population numbers are due to fisheries pressure, habitat 
loss, pollution, or an as yet unidentified threat.'' The petition uses 
this statement as support that listing may be warranted for the entire 
species. However, the information provided by the IUCN assessment 
indicates that the population of H. punctatus found in waters off 
Madagascar may possibly be stable and protected, suggesting this 
population is not currently at risk of extinction. In addition, broad 
statements about generalized threats or identification of factors that 
could negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial 
information that listing may be warranted. Thus, after evaluation of 
the species-specific information presented in the petition, we find 
that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for H. punctatus.
    Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, commonly referred to as the daggernose 
shark, is found in the western Atlantic, ranging from the Caribbean 
(Trinidad, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana) to northern Brazil and 
possibly in waters off central Brazil (Lessa et al., 2006). The shark 
occurs in highly turbid, inshore waters, preferring indented coasts 
with shallow banks, muddy bottoms, and mangrove forests (Lessa et al., 
2006). It has been caught in depths of 4-40 m off northern Brazil and 
is thought to spend most of its life cycle within its range, as no long 
distance movements have been observed (Lessa et al., 2006). Annual rate 
of population increase, natural mortality, average reproductive age, 
and longevity are unknown (Lessa et al., 2006). The species is believed 
to reach maturity at 6-7 years for females, and 5-6 years for males, 
with maximum observed sizes of 160 cm total length (TL) and 144 cm TL, 
respectively (Lessa et al., 2000). Average litter sizes range from 3 to 
8 pups, with a gestation time of 12 months and an unknown but possible 
biennial reproductive periodicity (Lessa et al., 2006).
    The shark is primarily caught as bycatch in artisanal floating 
gillnet fisheries in northern Brazil (Lessa et al., 2006). It is also 
taken in small numbers by artisanal fishermen in Venezuela, Trinidad, 
Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana; however, data are currently 
lacking for these areas (Lessa et al., 2006). According to a study 
referenced by the IUCN assessment (Lessa et al., 2006), the population 
off northern Brazil is thought to be decreasing at a rate of 18.4 
percent per year, with substantial declines (>90 percent) over the past 
10 years. From November 1983 to February 1985, a survey conducted off 
northern Brazil showed the species represented around 10 percent of the 
floating gillnet elasmobranch catch (Lessa, 1986), while a later survey 
(Stride et al., 1992) reported a catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 71 kg/
km/h for the species. Unfortunately, we were unable to review these 
studies, as they are not in our files and were not provided by the 
petitioner.
    The petitioner asserts that the daggernose shark's continued 
existence is threatened by the synergistic effects of habitat 
destruction, overutilization for commercial purposes, inadequate 
regulatory measures, and the species' biological characteristics. In 
terms of threats to the species' habitat, the petitioner notes that 
population growth and subsequent coastal development within the range 
of the species is degrading the species' habitat and leading to 
increased pollutants in the coastal waters. The petitioner provides 
general information about population density within Latin America and 
the growth of the global population. However, information that the 
population is growing, on its own, does not indicate that the growing 
human population is a threat to the species. The petition continues by 
discussing some potential negative effects from this growth for coastal 
ecosystems, including increased inputs of nutrients and chemical wastes 
from run-off pollution, increased sedimentation, deforestation, and the 
physical destruction of coastal shorelines. While we acknowledge that 
these may be potential effects of a growing human population, we look 
to see if the species is directly exposed to and responding in a 
negative fashion to any of these factors. The petitioner does not 
provide any information to indicate the species is exposed or 
negatively responding to any of the identified factors, nor do we have 
that information in our files. For example, the petition mentions the 
increasing number of dead zones worldwide but does not provide any 
evidence that these dead zones occur in areas within the daggernose 
shark's range, or information on the species' likely response to 
hypoxic conditions. The petition provides no information on water 
quality within the daggernose shark's range, or the species' response 
to factors such as increased sedimentation or nutrients. The petition 
notes that the daggernose shark occurs in mangrove systems within its 
range, and cites the destruction of these mangroves as a threat to the 
species. We reviewed the citation that the petition used as support for 
this statement (FAO, 2007) but found no evidence that would suggest 
this is a significant threat to the species' continued existence in its 
range. The FAO (2007) study examined the status and trends of the 
world's mangrove areas, including those likely to be within the 
daggernose shark's

[[Page 69384]]

range. For each country with mangrove areas, the study provided the 
annual change in mangrove area for three time periods: 1980-1990, 1990-
2000, and 2000-2005. In Brazil, the study found that the annual change 
in mangrove area was -0.3 percent, -0.1 percent, and 0 percent for the 
three periods, but that the majority of this loss was along the 
southern coast, an area that is outside of the daggernose shark range. 
For French Guiana, the change was 0 percent for all three periods and 
the FAO (2007) notes that ``no serious threats seem to pressure the 
mangroves'' there. For Trinidad, the change was -0.4 percent, -0.2 
percent, and 0 percent. For Guyana, the change was -1 percent, -0.3 
percent, and 0 percent, with activities that include afforestation and 
reforestation currently being undertaken (FAO, 2007). In Suriname, the 
change was noted as ``not significant,'' with mangroves protected in 
multiple-use management areas (FAO, 2007). Given the above information, 
which indicates very little loss of mangrove forests within the 
daggernose shark range, we do not find the petitioner's assertion of 
mangrove destruction to be a significant threat to the species' 
continued existence.
    The petitioner also contends that overutilization for commercial 
purposes is placing the species at an increased risk of extinction. 
Specifically, the petitioner notes that the daggernose shark is caught 
as bycatch in artisanal floating gillnets in northern Brazil, and 
repeats the information about CPUE from the Stride et al. (1992) survey 
and the observed decreases in the northern Brazil population as support 
that the species is being overutilized. The petitioner provides general 
information about bycatch and the dangers facing shark populations. The 
petition makes the assumption that fishing pressures are similar 
throughout all of the species' range and, therefore, similar declines 
are likely, but provides no information on effort or catch elsewhere. 
The petition also asserts that the species' biological characteristics, 
such as slow intrinsic population growth and high natural mortality 
(neither of which have been estimated) have resulted in a population 
that cannot rebound from this fishing pressure. The petition also 
provides general information on the use and trade of shark meat and 
fins, including import and export data from the countries in the 
daggernose shark's range. These trade data are for all shark species 
and products and do not show the relative importance of the daggernose 
shark in trade. As Compagno (1984b) notes, the daggernose shark meat is 
``occasionally marketed but not considered a prime food fish,'' and the 
species' fins are not valued in the international fin trade (Lessa et 
al., 2006).
    However, given the substantial declines that have been observed in 
the population (>90 percent) and ongoing declines off northern Brazil, 
the fact that the species is recorded in artisanal catch throughout its 
restricted range and, although not targeted, does enter the market, and 
coupled with its known life history traits which increase its 
susceptibility to depletion (such as low reproductive rate), we find 
that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that I. oxyrhynchus may be threatened due to 
overutilization and that listing may be warranted.
    Lamiopsis temmincki, commonly referred to as the broadfin shark, is 
known to occur in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific, off India, 
Pakistan, Myanmar, Indonesia, eastern Malaysia, and China. According to 
Compagno (1984b), it is unknown whether its distribution is sporadic or 
continuous. It is a continental, inshore shark, and was once common on 
the west coast of India (Bombay region) but is now found only in low 
numbers throughout its range. However, according to the IUCN assessment 
(White et al., 2009), the species ``is taken regularly (but in low 
numbers) by local fishermen in India (Bombay), Pakistan (Karachi), 
Sarawak and Kalimantan (Indonesia),'' with its meat used for human 
consumption, fins traded, and livers used for vitamin oil. Information 
from our own files also indicates that the species is commonly taken in 
fisheries operating within its range. In Mukah (Sarawak, Malaysia), L. 
temmincki was the 10th most landed shark from July 2003 to August 2004 
(Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). However, we do not have 
information on population abundance (historical or current) or catch 
information (numbers or trends), nor are these data provided in the 
petition. Without this type of information on historical or current 
abundance or population trends, it is difficult to assess whether the 
population is at a risk of extinction that may warrant listing.
    The petition contends that the species is threatened by destruction 
of habitat, overutilization by fisheries, inadequate regulatory 
measures, and synergistic effects, but provides very little to no 
information or data to support these statements. For example, the 
petition does not provide any references related to habitat destruction 
or degradation, just to state that it is ``prolific'' throughout most 
of the species' range and represents a significant threat. It is 
unclear on what information the petition (or the IUCN assessment) bases 
this assertion. Likewise, the petition makes general assumptions 
regarding the species' extinction risk from the other threats it 
identifies, such as its life history traits and the lack of species-
specific protections, but provides no evidence or information that 
shows the species is responding in a negative fashion to these threats. 
We do not consider general assumptions and assertions made by the 
petitioner as substantial information that listing may be warranted. As 
such, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific 
or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 
L. temmincki.
    Mustelus fasciatus, commonly referred to as the striped smooth-
hound, is endemic to the Southwest Atlantic, found on the inner 
continental shelf from south Brazil to Argentina (estimated 1,500 km of 
coastline) (Hozbor et al., 2004). In southern Brazil, gravid females 
occur at depths greater than 20 m (up to 250 m deep) but migrate to 
shallower, inshore waters in the spring to give birth (Hozbor et al., 
2004). Neonates and small juveniles will remain in these shallow 
waters, using them as nursery grounds. Little other life history 
information is known for this species.
    The petition identifies overutilization for commercial purposes and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms as threats to the species. According 
to the IUCN assessment (Hozbor et al., 2004), fishing is intense in the 
coastal nursery areas of southern Brazil, with evidence the species is 
caught as bycatch in the shrimp and multi-species fisheries (Haimovici 
and Mendonca, 1996). These fisheries, which operate using trawl, 
gillnet, and beach seine gear, catch gravid females during their 
seasonal inshore migration and juveniles all year-round. In the 1980s, 
neonates were frequently caught in large numbers (10-100 per gillnet 
set) off the beach in the summer, but in 2003 their occurrence was 
characterized as sporadic (Hozbor et al., 2004). In 2002, the state 
government of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil) classified M. fasciatus as a 
species threatened with extinction (Hozbor et al., 2004). Farther 
south, in Uruguay, M. fasciatus is caught as bycatch in industrial and 
artisanal fisheries. According to Hozbor et al. (2004), the biomass of 
M. fasciatus in the coastal region of the Bonaerensean District 
(northern Argentina and Uruguay) decreased by 96 percent between 1994 
and 1999, as measured by trawl surveys.

[[Page 69385]]

    In terms of regulatory measures, the petition indicates that 
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate and have failed to 
protect the species from both targeted and bycatch mortality. It 
highlights Brazil's trawl fishing regulation, which prohibits trawling 
at distances less than 3 nautical miles (5.56 km) from the shore (which 
would be in depths of less than around 10 m). However, the petition and 
IUCN assessment contend that enforcement of the law is difficult and 
that trawling continues to occur in these nursery areas (Hozbor et al., 
2004). In addition, gillnetting, which has historically been the 
primary method to catch neonates within these inshore areas, remains 
unregulated (Hozbor et al., 2004). Thus, the petition suggests that it 
is the largely unregulated overutilization of the species that has put 
the species in danger of extinction.
    Given the occurrence of the species in fisheries catch and bycatch 
data, evidence of substantial declines in biomass (96 percent) and 
observed decreases in abundance in some areas, as well as information 
indicating current regulations may be inadequate to protect the species 
from overutilization, we find that the petition presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted for M. fasciatus.
    Mustelus schmitti, commonly referred to as the narrownose smooth-
hound, is endemic to the southwest Atlantic, and is found in waters off 
of southwest Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay (between latitudes 22[deg] 
S and 48[deg] S) (Massa et al., 2006). It is found in coastal waters to 
depths of 140 m. A large population is known to migrate seasonally, 
wintering off southern Brazil and moving south to spend summers off 
Uruguay and/or Argentina (Massa et al., 2006). There was also a 
smaller, local population that was known to breed in south Brazil 
during the spring, but is now thought to be extirpated (Massa et al., 
2006).
    The petition identifies overutilization and the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms as threats to the species' continued 
existence. The petition notes that the species experiences heavy 
fishing pressure throughout its entire range, including in its nursery 
grounds. In south Brazil, the wintering population is targeted and also 
caught as a component of the mixed-species fishery. Based on bottom 
trawl CPUE data, the winter migrant population of south Brazil has 
decreased by 85 percent between 1985 and 1997 (Massa et al., 2006). The 
small resident population, that was once common in waters of south 
Brazil, has apparently disappeared. A summer shore fishery survey, 
conducted in 2003, failed to record any members of the local 
population, despite the once common occurrence of neonates in beach 
seines and bottom trawls in the 1980s (Massa et al., 2006). The IUCN 
assessment (Massa et al., 2006) attributes this disappearance to 
intense and continual fishing efforts in the inshore pupping and 
nursery grounds.
    In Argentina, M. schmitti is a commercially important species 
(Chiaramonte, 1998), mainly caught in the multi-species trawl fishery, 
and its demand in the market has increased (Massa et al., 2006). From 
1992 to 1996, total declared landings of the species in Argentina more 
than doubled, from 5,047.6 mt to 10,271.3 mt (Chiaramonte, 1998). From 
1993 to 1996, a survey that examined shark species in 454 Patagonian 
coastal fishery trawls found M. schmitti to be the most frequently 
caught species (found in 28 percent of the trawls) and it was recorded 
within all trawling areas (Molen et al., 1998). However, between 1998 
and 2002, national Argentinian landings of the species decreased by 30 
percent (Massa et al., 2006, citing unpublished data). In Uruguay, the 
species is taken as bycatch in industrial and artisanal fisheries. 
Estimated annual capture of both M. schmitti and M. fasciatus was 900 
mt from 2000-2002 (although M. schmitti was the main species in the 
catch; (Massa et al., 2006)). Between 1998 and 2002, biomass of the 
species decreased by 22 percent in the main fishing areas off Uruguay 
and Argentina (Massa et al., 2006, citing unpublished data).
    In terms of fishery regulations, the petition contends that the 
only current conservation measure in place for the species is a 
permitted maximum catch, established by the Argentine fisheries 
authority, but argues that catch should be set at zero to ensure the 
species' survival.
    Declines of 20 to 30 percent in biomass and landings do not 
necessarily indicate that a population is at risk of extinction or that 
catch must be prohibited (especially without additional information 
regarding the population size or maximum sustainable yield). However, 
based on the above information provided which shows the species is 
commercially important, taken in substantial numbers in fisheries 
within its range, including in nursery grounds and pupping areas, and 
has experienced large declines (85 percent) in parts of its range, with 
a potential extirpation of a local population, we find overutilization 
for commercial purposes may be a threat to the species' current 
existence. As such, we find that the petition presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be 
warranted for M. schmitti.
    The petition requests that we list three species of angel sharks 
that have similar ranges and are found in coastal and outer continental 
shelf sediment habitats in the Mediterranean Sea and eastern Atlantic. 
These three species are Squatina aculeata, S. oculata, and S. squatina. 
Angel sharks are bottom dwellers, preferring to spend most of their 
time buried in the sand or mud. Squatina squatina can be found from 
close inshore (5 m) to at least 150 m in depth (Morey et al., 2006). S. 
aculeata can be found in depths of 30 to 500 m, and S. oculata occurs 
in depths of over 20 to 500 m (Morey et al., 2007a; 2007b). The 
historical range of S. squatina extended along the eastern Atlantic, 
from Scandinavia to Mauritania and the Canary Islands, and included the 
Mediterranean and Black seas. The historical range of S. aculeata 
extended from the Mediterranean Sea (western and central basins) to the 
eastern Atlantic, from Morocco to Namibia, and the historical range of 
S. oculata extended throughout the Mediterranean and in the eastern 
Atlantic, from southern Portugal to Namibia. Many of the life history 
traits of these angel sharks are unknown, including the age at 
maturity, reproductive periodicity, productivity, and natural 
mortality. Squatina aculeata is thought to mature around 124 cm, with 
maximum size achieved at around 188 cm (Morey et al., 2007a). Squatina 
oculata sizes at maturity range from 71 to 100 cm, with maximum size of 
160 cm, and S. squatina mature at sizes of 80 to 169 cm (depending on 
sex), with a maximum size of up to 244 cm (Morey et al., 2006; 2007b).
    The petition identifies bottom trawling, human population growth, 
overutilization, inadequacy of existing regulatory measures, and 
isolation of populations as potential threats to the existence of these 
species. The petition notes that identifying angel sharks down to 
species is difficult and so many of the fishing records identify catch 
only to the genus level. In the Mediterranean, historical records from 
the late 1800s to early 1900s show a decline in the number of angel 
sharks caught in tuna traps that were operating in Baratti (Northern 
Tyrrhenian Sea) (Morey et al., 2006; 2007a; 2007b). From 1898 to 1905, 
catches of angel sharks averaged 134 sharks per year, but from 1914-
1933, this average declined to only 15 sharks per year (Morey et al., 
2006; 2007a; 2007b). As these years coincided with

[[Page 69386]]

the beginning of trawling activity in the area, the IUCN assessments 
(Morey et al., 2006; 2007a; 2007b) attribute the decline in catch 
specifically to trawl fishing, noting that angel sharks, which dwell 
near or on the bottom, are especially susceptible to this type of 
fishing activity.
    The petition notes that this bottom trawling activity has continued 
to increase in both intensity and efficiency on the Mediterranean shelf 
and slope over the last 50 years, and, as such, is a threat to the 
angel shark species existence. The petition states that the three 
species are now rare or absent from most of the northern Mediterranean 
coastline (Morey et al., 2006; 2007a; 2007b), as evidenced by species-
specific catch data from two major trawl surveys that were conducted in 
the north Mediterranean: the Mediterranean International Trawl Survey 
(MEDITS) and the Italian National Project. During the MEDITS program 
(1995-1999), tows were made in depths of 10-800 m along the north 
Mediterranean coastline, from west Morocco to the Aegean Sea. Out of 
the 9,095 tows, S. squatina appeared in two, S. aculeata appeared in 
one, and S. oculata was not present in any of the tows (Morey et al., 
2006; 2007a; 2007b). Biomass estimates were only provided for S. 
squatina, with total biomass estimated to be 14 mt throughout the 
survey area, equating to about 1,400 sharks (Morey et al., 2006). The 
Italian National Project survey (1985-1998) did not report any catches 
of S. aculeata or S. oculata from the 9,281 hauls conducted in the 
northern Mediterranean (Morey et al., 2007a; 2007b). S. squatina were 
caught in only 0.41 percent of the hauls (Morey et al., 2006).
    Squatina aculeata is now considered to be absent from the Black Sea 
and rare in the eastern part of the Mediterranean (Morey et al., 
2007a). Squatina squatina has also become rare within its range, with 
evidence of possible local extirpations. For example, it was once 
recorded in trawl surveys in the Adriatic Sea (in 1948), but the MEDIT 
surveys conducted in 1998 found no evidence of the species in this area 
(Morey et al., 2006). In addition, the last reported landing of the 
species in the northeast Atlantic was in 1998 (compiled from landings 
records dated 1978 to 2002 for all International Council for the 
Exploration of the Sea areas), and is now considered extinct in the 
North Sea (Morey et al., 2006).
    Off the Balearic Islands (Spain), Squatina sharks were fairly 
common until the mid-1980s, with records from a lobster gillnet fishery 
that show angel sharks (likely S. aculeata or S. oculata) caught on a 
daily basis (Morey et al., 2007a; 2007b). However, since the mid-1990s, 
there have been no records of Squatina sharks around the Balearic 
Islands, despite a bottom trawl fishing survey that was conducted at 
depths where the sharks should be present (between 46 and 1800 m) 
(Morey et al., 2007a; 2007b). The petition points to evidence that 
Squatina sharks were once targeted and caught by a special net called 
an `escaterea' in these waters (Morey et al., 2007a), but reports from 
fishermen indicate that all species of Squatina have undergone dramatic 
declines over the last 20 years and are likely extirpated from the area 
(Morey et al., 2006; 2007a; 2007b).
    Off the coast of West Africa, these angel shark species are 
primarily taken as bycatch in industrial demersal trawl fisheries and 
inshore bottom set gillnets. The IUCN assessments (Morey et al., 2007a; 
2007b) provide Portuguese landings data from a fleet fishing in 
Moroccan and Mauritanian waters that showed landings of the three 
species peaking in 1990 at 35 t and then decreasing by 95 percent to 
1.7 t in 1998, when the fishery subsequently closed. However, the IUCN 
assessments caution that the level of fishing effort associated with 
these data is unknown. Citing various personal communications, the IUCN 
assessments also note that the Squatina sharks were common in these 
waters in the 1970s and 1980s, frequently caught by lines and gillnets; 
however, according to both artisanal fishermen and observers of the 
industrial demersal trawl fleets, the species has been depleted and is 
now only very rarely observed. Morey et al., (2007a) and (2007b) also 
mention research surveys that were conducted along the coast of West 
Africa and previously reported catches of Squatina species, but noted 
that no specimens have been captured since 1998 for S. aculeata and 
since 2002 for S. oculata.
    The petition identifies existing regulations that aim to protect 
these three species from further declines, but contends that these 
current regulations are either insufficient or ineffective to protect 
the existing populations of the three species from extinction. For 
example, the petition notes that Squatina sharks are protected from 
fishing within six Balearic Islands marine reserves, but suggests that 
local extirpation of the species are likely in this part of the 
Squatina range, and, therefore, the regulation is not effective in 
minimizing extinction risk to the existing populations. In 2012, S. 
aculeata was added to Spain's List of Wild Species under Special 
Protection, which essentially prohibits the capture or trade of the 
species by Spanish citizens (Morey et al., 2007a). Squatina squatina is 
listed as a prohibited species by the European Union. This listing 
prohibits EU and third country vessels from fishing for, transporting, 
or landing the species in EU waters (Morey et al., 2006). Likewise, S. 
squatina is also protected from fishing activities within three 
nautical miles of English coastal baselines by the UK Wildlife and 
Countryside Act (Morey et al., 2006). However, as the petition notes, 
these regulations provide protections for these species in only parts 
of their ranges, including in some areas where the species are no 
longer found (northern Mediterranean, northeast Atlantic).
    Based on the above information provided by the petition, which 
shows that these three species were once common and frequently taken in 
various fisheries but have now noticeably declined in abundance 
throughout their ranges, with evidence of possible local extirpations, 
we find that the threats of overutilization and inadequate regulatory 
measures as described above may be putting the species at an increased 
risk of extinction. As such, we find that the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted for S. aculeata, S. oculata, and S. squatina.
    The petition also requests that we list three species of angel 
sharks that are endemic to the southwest Atlantic: Squatina argentina, 
S. punctata, and S. guggenheim. According to the IUCN assessments 
(Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007; IUCN SSG, 
2007), there is some controversy regarding the taxonomy of these 
southwest Atlantic Squatina species. In one study, for example, the 
authors analyzed mitochondrial DNA and indicated that there are only 
three species of Squatina in southern Brazil: S. argentina, S. 
guggenheim, and S. occulta (Furtado-Neto and Carr, 2002). In another 
study (Vooren and Silva, 1991), S. punctata was characterized as being 
the same species as S. guggenheim. Based on the information provided in 
the petition, species-specific data are available for both S. 
argentina, whose validity as a species and occurrence is ``generally 
agreed upon'' (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006), and S. guggenheim, whose 
nomenclature and taxonomy are questionable, but whose occurrence and 
information on its abundance are represented in the available fisheries 
data. Although the petition requests us to list S. punctata, it 
provides no specific-specific population or

[[Page 69387]]

abundance data, or evidence of its occurrence. The only species-
specific information for S. punctata provided in the petition 
corresponds to some life history data from Vooren and Silva (1991), the 
paper in which the authors synonymize S. punctata with S. guggenheim, 
so it is unclear whether this information actually corresponds to S. 
punctata or S. guggenheim.
    In terms of threats, the petition identifies overutilization of S. 
punctata and provides general angel shark landing statistics and 
information on CPUE declines. However, Vooren and Chiaramonte (2006) 
and Chiaramonte and Vooren (2007) note that the landing statistics in 
southern Brazil (referenced in the petition) refer to S. guggenheim, S. 
occulta, and S. argentina combined, but make no mention of S. punctata. 
The petition notes that the sharp decline in landings is ``attributed 
to recruitment overfishing due to the bottom gillnet fishery;'' 
however, the citations it uses, which are also referenced by Vooren and 
Chiaramonte (2006) and Chiaramonte and Vooren (2007), specifically 
refer to the decline in abundance of S. argentina and S. guggenheim on 
the outer shelf of Brazil, not S. punctata. The petition also cites 
declines in angel shark catch in Argentine waters, but the IUCN 
assessments (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 
2007; IUCN SSG, 2007) note that the majority of these landings consist 
almost entirely of S. guggenheim. In Uruguay, the IUCN assessments 
(Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007; IUCN SSG, 
2007), citing a personal communication, state that species-specific 
statistics are not known, but that the largest catches most likely 
correspond to S. guggenheim and S. argentina. Given the available 
information provided by the petitioner, we do not find that the 
petition has presented substantial evidence that S. punctata is a 
taxonomically valid species for listing.
    We will now evaluate the petition's request to list the other two 
angel shark species in the southwest Atlantic, S. argentina and S. 
guggenheim. Squatina argentina is a bottom-dwelling species that occurs 
from 32[deg] S in Rio Grande, southern Brazil, to 43[deg] S, in 
northern Patagonia, Argentina (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006). It is 
found offshore, on the shelf and upper continental slope in depths of 
120 to 320 m, but has occasionally been observed in 50 m depths (Vooren 
and Chiaramonte, 2006). It has an estimated maximum size of 138 cm TL 
(Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006). Squatina guggenheim is a smaller angel 
shark species (maximum size is ~92 cm total length, TL), and occurs 
from 24[deg] S, in Rio de Janeiro, southern Brazil, to 43[deg] S, 
northern Patagonia, Argentina) (Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). It is 
also a bottom-dweller and is found at depths of 10 to 80 m in Brazil 
and from the coast to 150 m in Argentinian waters (Chiaramonte and 
Vooren, 2007).
    The petition identifies overutilization as a threat to the 
continued existence of both species. These angel sharks are both 
targeted and caught as bycatch in fisheries operating from southern 
Brazil to Uruguay. Landing statistics from southern Brazil are combined 
for S. argentina, S. guggenheim, and S. occulta as they are hard to 
distinguish. They show variable catches throughout the years, with 
peaks of around 2,000 mt for the species assemblage in 1986-1989 and 
1993 and then a decrease in catch to around 900 mt in 2003 (Vooren and 
Chiaramonte, 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). No data are cited in 
the petition or available in our files since 2003. From 1984 to 2002, 
CPUE of these angel sharks in otter and pair trawls on the continental 
shelf declined by around 85 percent (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006; 
Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). Research trawl surveys conducted on the 
outer shelf of southern Brazil in 1986/97 and 2001/02 also found 
significant declines in angel shark abundance, with S. guggenheim and 
S. argentina estimated to be at 15 percent of their original abundance 
levels (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). 
The petition references the IUCN assessments (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 
2006; Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007) which attribute these decreases to 
recruitment overfishing specifically by a bottom gillnet fishery that 
began in 1990 and continues to operate on the outer continental shelf, 
targeting and taking large numbers of Squatina sharks. In addition to 
being targeted catch, the petition notes that S. argentina is also 
caught (and retained) in significant numbers as bycatch in the trawl 
and gillnet fishery for monkfish (Lophius gastrophysus), which operates 
on the shelf edge and upper slope (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006). In 
2001, the estimated bycatch of S. argentina in the monkfish gillnet 
fishery was 1.052 sharks per 100 nets, which equates to a total of 
8,689 individuals (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006). Vooren and 
Chiaramonte (2006) note that S. argentina was ``one of the most 
retained bycatch species'' in the monkfish gillnet fishery.
    In Argentina, angel shark landings have been decreasing since 
reaching maximum levels in 1998, with landings almost entirely 
consisting of S. guggenheim (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006; Chiaramonte 
and Vooren, 2007). Citing a study from 1982, Chiaramonte and Vooren 
(2007) state that annual biomass for angel sharks on the Buenos Aires 
coast (in 1981/82) was estimated to be around 4,050 mt, with total 
captures of Squatina sharks wavering around 1,000 mt between 1979 and 
1984. However, by the 1990s, landings had increased to over 4,000 mt, 
with maximum landings recorded in 1997 and 1998. Chiaramonte and Vooren 
(2007) and Vooren and Chaiaramonte (2006) note that these landings 
consisted almost entirely of S. guggenheim (and that S. argentina is 
rare in commercial landings data); however, Molen (1998), citing an 
anonymous reference, stated that landings of S. argentina were 4,300 mt 
in 1997. In addition, a bottom trawl survey conducted between 1993 and 
1996 found S. argentina to be of medium frequency in Patagonian coastal 
trawl fisheries, showing up as bycatch in 15.4 percent of the 454 
trawls (Molen, 1998). Therefore, it appears that both S. argentina and 
S. guggenheim may have been present and fairly abundant in the late 
1990s in Argentine waters. In 1998, the gillnet fleet of Puerto Quequen 
considered angel sharks to be the second most important fish in their 
catch (Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). Landings of these angel sharks 
have since decreased from the 1997/98 peak levels, dropping to 3,550 mt 
in 2003 (Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007). The petition indicates that the 
overall negative trend in these landings data (from 1998 to 2003) is 
also reflected in the 58 percent decline in CPUE of the angel shark 
that was calculated for the coastal bottom trawl fleet in Argentina 
(Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007).
    In Uruguay, species-specific statistics are unavailable, but the 
petition notes that angel sharks are taken as bycatch in industrial and 
artisanal fisheries. Total Squatina shark captures have been estimated 
at 300 to 400 mt per year since 1997, with the majority likely S. 
guggenheim and S. argentina (based on personal communications provided 
to Chiaramonte and Vooren (2007) and Vooren and Chiaramonte (2006)).
    The petition also identifies inadequate regulatory measures and the 
species' low reproductive potential as threats to the continued 
existence of both species. The petition, citing the IUCN assessments, 
states that there are currently no regulations to manage the angel 
shark fishery that operates on the continental shelf off southern 
Brazil. However, a management plan for the gillnet monkfish fishery, 
which takes

[[Page 69388]]

substantial numbers of S. argentina as bycatch, was approved in 2005 
and thus may help to minimize the threat of overutilization to the 
species in this area (Vooren and Chiaramonte, 2006). The petition also 
notes that Argentina has set the maximum permitted catch for angel 
sharks at 4,000 mt (down from 6,000 mt in the years 1995 to 1999), a 
quota that appears to be similar to the peak landings of the Squatina 
species during the 1990s. However, with declining trends evident in the 
landings and CPUE of angel sharks, this management measure may not be 
adequate to protect the species from threats such as overutilization. 
In addition, the petition asserts that the low reproductive potential 
of both species makes them especially slow to recover from 
overutilization and depletion, and thus poses an additional threat to 
the species' existence. For example, the petition states that pregnant 
females of S. guggenheim are known to abort embryos upon capture in 
fishing gear, thus further decreasing their reproductive potential even 
if released alive (Chiaramonte and Vooren, 2007).
    After a review of the species-specific information provided in the 
petition, which shows that S. argentina and S. guggenheim have and 
continue to be targeted and taken in various fisheries, with limited 
regulation of these fisheries and evidence of significant population 
declines for both species in part of their range, we find that the 
threats of overutilization and inadequate regulatory measures as 
described above may be putting the two angel shark species at an 
increased risk of extinction. As such, we find that the petition 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing may be warranted for S. argentina and S. guggenheim.
    Squatina formosa, commonly referred to as the Taiwan angel shark, 
occurs in the northwest Pacific Ocean and East China Sea and is 
primarily found in waters around northern Taiwan and the East Taiwan 
Strait (Walsh and Ebert, 2009). It is found on the continental shelf, 
in depths of around 100-300 m, with a maximum recorded size of 150 cm 
TL (Walsh and Ebert, 2009). There are no life history details for this 
species or information on its population size. Although it is found in 
local Taiwanese fish markets, there have been no catch records of this 
species (possibly due to the difficulty in distinguishing the species 
from other angel sharks in the area) (Walsh and Ebert, 2009).
    Although the petition contends that the extensive bottom trawling 
occurring within the range of S. formosa has led to overutilization of 
the species to the point where the species is threatened with 
extinction, the petition provides no information on catch numbers, 
population status, or abundance trends for the species. Instead, the 
petition refers to other angel shark species in different parts of the 
world that have undergone population declines from intense fishing 
pressure, and uses this information as a surrogate for evidence of 
threats to S. formosa. While we agree that extensive fishing is 
occurring within the range of S. formosa, the petition has not provided 
any information on the level of directed fishing or level of bycatch of 
this particular shark. The petition only notes that there are no catch 
records of the species but that it is present in the market place. The 
petition also argues that the triennial reproductive cycle and small 
litter sizes makes several species of angel sharks more vulnerable to 
depletion, but specific reproductive information for S. formosa is not 
currently known (although it is likely similar to other angel shark 
species). We do not find that the available information is substantial 
information indicating that overutilization is a threat to this species 
such that listing may be warranted.
    The petition also contends that there are no conservation measures 
in place for the species, but states that there are some areas of 
Chinese waters that are protected from trawling activities. The 
petition does not provide any additional information on these 
regulations except to note that these areas may or may not be within S. 
formosa's range and may not be effectively enforced and therefore 
``provide no certain protection'' for the species. It is unclear how 
the petitioner came to such a conclusion. The petition specifically 
identifies bottom trawling as a threat to the species, so if this 
activity were prohibited within certain areas of the species' range, 
this threat would be decreased and provide some protection to the 
species.
    The petition fails to provide any information on the species' 
abundance, life history, status, or trends throughout all or a 
significant portion of the species' range, nor do we have any 
information in our files. The petition provides no evidence that the 
species is or has been in decline. The petition provides only general 
statements and assumptions regarding threats to the species but does 
not provide evidence to suggest these threats are acting upon the 
species to the point where it may meet the definition of threatened or 
endangered. As such, we find that the petition does not provide 
substantial evidence that listing may be warranted for S. formosa.
    Triakis acutipinna, commonly referred to as the sharpfin 
houndshark, is found only in the tropical, continental waters off 
Manabi Province, Ecuador. Little is known about the species' life 
history, habitat, or ecology. It was first recorded 40 years ago, in 
waters off Isla de La Plata, and has since been identified in artisanal 
coastal gillnet fishery landings from the coastal fishing port of 
Daniel L[oacute]pez, Ecuador. However, its occurrence is rare and it is 
unknown whether the species is taken in other artisanal inshore 
fisheries. The petition states that the current population size is 
estimated to be less than 2,500 individuals, based on very few records, 
and cites the IUCN assessment (Compagno et al., 2009); however, it is 
unclear how this number was calculated. Neither the IUCN assessment nor 
the petition provides any references to population size data, records 
of abundance or occurrence, or information on how the population total 
was calculated. It appears that the size of the species is only known 
from two documented adult specimens, a male of 90 cm and a female of 
102 cm (Compagno et al., 2009). All other life history parameters are 
unknown.
    The petition acknowledges that little is known about the species 
and its occurrence in fisheries catch, but contends that the species is 
landed and perhaps targeted and thus fishing pressure is likely causing 
a decline and is a threat to its continued existence. In 2004, Ecuador 
banned directed fishing for sharks in all of its waters; therefore, it 
is illegal to target the species. Although fishermen can catch sharks 
as bycatch, information provided in the petition indicates that the 
species is only rarely caught as bycatch, and has only been observed in 
landings from the artisanal coastal gillnet fishery in the fishing port 
of Daniel L[oacute]pez (Compagno et al., 2009). As such, we do not find 
that the available information indicates that overutilization is a 
threat to the species. In addition, the petition states that regulatory 
measures are inadequate to protect the species from extinction because 
trade in shark fins is still allowed, which will ``ensure that the 
sharpfin houndshark will continue to be a utilized bycatch species.'' 
However, the petitioner provides no evidence that sharpfin houndshark 
fins even enter (or are valued in) the shark fin trade. It also states 
that the meat of sharpfin houndsharks has a higher value than most 
other species, but does not provide a reference for the statement or 
any further information that would support the claim that the sharpfin 
houndshark

[[Page 69389]]

is valued in trade, nor do we have that type of information on its 
trade in our files.
    Although the sharpfin houndshark may be a rare species, the 
petition has not provided any evidence to indicate that the species is 
currently in decline or that there are any threats that are acting upon 
the species to the point where it may meet the definition of threatened 
or endangered. As such, we find that the petition does not provide 
substantial evidence that listing may be warranted for T. acutipinna.

Species-Specific Information for Requested DPSs

    This petition also requests that we identify three subpopulations 
of shark species as DPSs and subsequently list these subpopulations as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. In evaluating this request, we 
must first consider whether the petition provides substantial 
information that the requested populations may qualify as DPSs under 
the discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy (as 
noted above in the ``Background'' section). If we find that the 
petition presents substantial information that the requested 
populations may qualify as DPSs, we must then determine whether the 
petitioner provides substantial information that listing may be 
warranted for those DPSs. Our analyses and conclusions regarding the 
information presented by the petitioner and available in our files for 
these petitioned subpopulations are provided below.
    Carcharias taurus, commonly referred to as the sandtiger shark, is 
found in all warm and temperate seas, except the eastern Pacific. They 
occur in the surf zone, in shallow bays and around coral and rocky 
reefs, but are also found in depths as great as 191 m on the outer 
continental shelf (Compagno, 1984a). The petitioner requests that we 
list the Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of sandtiger shark as 
threatened or endangered, arguing that it satisfies both the 
``discreteness'' and ``significance'' requirements under our DPS 
policy, and thus qualifies as a DPS.
    The petition contends that the Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of 
sandtiger shark is discrete based on physical, physiological, 
behavioral, and morphological factors. In terms of physical barriers, 
the petition states that the population rarely occurs in deep water 
(greater than 200 m depth; Compagno, 1984a) and uses this as evidence 
that the species does not mix with the sandtiger sharks found 
elsewhere. However, the petitioner provides no other information, such 
as tagging studies, to support its claim of isolation. Additionally, 
this depth barrier does not explain why mixing would not occur between 
the Southwest Atlantic population and those sharks found in the 
Caribbean as well as the Northwest Atlantic.
    The petition also states that the Southwest Atlantic population is 
behaviorally unique because it is more migratory than other C. taurus 
populations, yet does not mix with these other populations, and cites 
Sardowsky (1970) and Compagno (2001) as support. These references are 
also used as support for the petitioner's claim that the Southwest 
Atlantic subpopulation is a `closed group,' with dentition that differs 
from all other subpopulations. However, it is unclear how the 
petitioner came to these conclusions based on the results of these 
studies. The study by Sardowsky (1970) examined the dentition of 
specimens of C. taurus caught in waters off Canan[eacute]ia, Brazil, 
and compared their dental characteristics to sandtigers from other 
regions. Based on these comparisons, the authors concluded that the 
sandtiger sharks found off the coast of southern Brazil are not 
taxonomically distinct from sandtigers found elsewhere in the world. 
Sardowsky (1970) also states that the northwest Atlantic population and 
Brazilian populations are not isolated from each other and share some 
dental character combinations. The Compagno (2001) reference mentions 
that the sandtiger shark is strongly migratory in certain parts of its 
range, and lists populations found off Australia, the east coast of the 
USA, and the east coast of South Africa as sharing this behavior. 
Lucifora et al. (2002) notes that this migratory behavior is likely 
linked to reproduction and also observed it in sandtigers in the 
Southwest Atlantic. In fact, the reproductive migration patterns of the 
Southwest Atlantic sandtigers were noted as similar to those of 
sandtigers in the northwest Atlantic (Lucifora et al., 2002). Although 
the petition contends that the Southwest Atlantic sandtiger population 
has ``its own unique maturation age and size'', Lucifora et al. (2002) 
states that the estimates of maturity size for sandtigers found off 
Brazil (females = 218-235 cm TL and males = 193 cm TL) are comparable 
to those for sandtigers off the east coast of the USA (females = 220-
229 cm TL; males = 190-195 cm TL), South Africa (females = 220 cm TL; 
males = 202-220 cm TL), and Australia (females = 220 cm TL). Thus, the 
available information in our files and provided by the petitioner 
suggests the Southwest Atlantic population of C. taurus shares many of 
its biological and life history characteristics with populations of C. 
taurus found elsewhere. We therefore find that petitioner has not 
provided substantial information to indicate that the Southwest 
Atlantic population of C. taurus may qualify as a discrete population 
based on physical, physiological, behavioral, or morphological factors.
    Citing the same information it provided for the discreteness factor 
discussed above, the petitioner asserts that the Southwest Atlantic 
population segment is significant to the taxon. However, based on our 
above analysis, we do not find that the petitioner has provided 
substantial information that this specific population has biological or 
ecological significance to the taxon. The available information does 
not indicate that the population exists in an unusual or unique 
ecological setting, or that loss of the population would result in a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon, or that it differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    In conclusion, we find that the petitioner has failed to provide 
substantial information that the Southwest Atlantic population of 
sandtiger sharks may qualify as a DPS under the discreteness and 
significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy. As such, we deny the 
petitioner's request to list the Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of C. 
taurus as threatened or endangered because the available information in 
our files and provided by the petitioner suggests it is not a 
``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA.
    Cetorhinus maximus, commonly referred to as the basking shark, is 
the second largest shark species (reaching lengths of 10 m) and is 
circumglobal in distribution (Compagno, 2001), observed in boreal to 
tropical waters (Skomal et al., 2009; Compagno, 2001). Seasonal changes 
in abundance have been noted for the species, as well as strong sexual 
segregation in parts of its range (NMFS, 2010). Tagging studies in the 
Atlantic have discovered that this species is capable of large, trans-
oceanic, and trans-equatorial migrations, and may occasionally dive to 
meso-pelagic depths (200 to 1000 m) (Gore et al., 2008; Skomal et al., 
2009). These sharks are filter-feeders and are commonly observed 
foraging at the surface on zooplankton (NMFS, 2010). The petitioner 
requests that we list both the North Pacific subpopulation as well as 
the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation of basking sharks as threatened or

[[Page 69390]]

endangered, asserting that these subpopulations satisfy both the 
``discreteness'' and ``significance'' requirements under our DPS 
policy, and thus qualify as DPSs.
    For both subpopulations, the petitioner claims that these 
populations are discrete because they are geographically isolated from 
other populations of the taxon. The petitioner cites a statement in the 
IUCN assessments (Fowler, 2009a; 2009b) which reads: ``[t]he different 
morphological characteristics of Basking Sharks in the Pacific and the 
north and south Atlantic oceans are not thought to indicate separate 
species (Compagno 1984), but are geographically isolated 
subpopulations.'' The petitioner uses this quote as the only source of 
information to support the claim of discreteness through geographic 
isolation. In addition, the petitioner uses the above statement as the 
only support to show that these two subpopulations are also significant 
to the species. According to the petitioner, the geographic isolation 
mentioned in the quote is evidence that loss of either subpopulation 
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the 
morphological differences mentioned in the quote is evidence that the 
subpopulations are markedly different from other populations of the 
species based on genetic characteristics. However, the IUCN assessments 
from which this quote is taken (Fowler, 2009a; 2009b) do not provide 
any details regarding the different morphological characteristics, such 
as what they are or which populations exhibit these traits, or explain 
how these apparent differences indicate geographic isolation. In 
addition, we reviewed the information on C. maximus presented in 
Compagno (1984a) and found no discussion of morphological differences 
between the Pacific and the north and south Atlantic basking shark 
populations.
    In our own files, we reviewed a paper by Hoelzel et al. (2006), 
which examined the global genetic diversity of basking sharks by 
comparing samples of C. maximus mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 
the western North Atlantic, eastern North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, 
Indian Ocean and western Pacific. The results of this study showed that 
there is low genetic diversity in the global basking shark population 
and no significant genetic differentiation between ocean basins. The 
authors suggested that this lack of genetic structure in the global 
basking shark population is likely a result of a population bottleneck 
event that occurred within the Holocene epoch, but also suggested it 
could be explained by female mediated gene flow over the entire range 
of the species (Hoelzel et al., 2006). The latter theory of worldwide 
panmixia of basking sharks has recently been supported by tagging 
studies conducted by Gore et al. (2008) and Skomal et al. (2009). These 
studies have revealed that basking sharks are capable of making trans-
oceanic migrations (with an observed trans-atlantic distance of 9,589 
km; Gore et al., 2008) across dynamic oceanographic conditions, from 
boreal and temperate latitudes to tropical waters (Skomal et al., 
2009). As Skomal et al. (2009) notes, these new data raise ``the 
possibility that there may also be migratory connectivity of basking 
sharks on global spatial scales.''
    Based on this information, we do not find evidence that indicates 
that the North Pacific or Northeast Atlantic subpopulations may qualify 
as discrete populations under our DPS policy based on physical, 
physiological, behavioral, or morphological factors, or may qualify as 
significant populations under our DPS policy based on differences in 
genetic characteristics. We also find that the petitioner has failed to 
provide substantial information that would indicate otherwise. As such, 
we deny the petitioner's request to list the North Pacific or Northeast 
Atlantic subpopulation of C. maximus as threatened or endangered 
because the available information in our files suggests these 
subpopulations are not ``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA.
    Currently, the basking shark is a NMFS ``Species of Concern'', with 
a focus on the eastern North Pacific part of its range. ``Species of 
Concern'' are those species about which NMFS has some concerns 
regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is 
available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. As 
noted on the basking shark ``Species of Concern'' fact sheet, ``[t]here 
is no aspect of the movements, behaviors, population size or structure, 
or life history that isn't data deficient for basking sharks in the 
eastern North Pacific'' (NMFS, 2010). There is a lack of information on 
habitat requirements for different life stages of basking sharks and 
there are still questions regarding key life history characteristics, 
including age at first reproduction, gestation period, littler size, 
and mating frequency. Population dynamics, structure, size, geographic 
range, and genetics are still largely unknown. Without this type of 
basic information, it is difficult to assess the potential threats to 
the species and how they may influence abundance and distribution of 
the species over long and short time scales. The basking shark will 
remain on our ``Species of Concern'' list until more data become 
available.

Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well 
as information readily available in our files, including the sections 
of the petition applicable to all of the petitioned species and 
subpopulations as well as the species-specific information, we conclude 
the petition in its entirety does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be 
warranted for 13 of the 22 species and subpopulations of sharks. These 
13 species and subpopulations are: Carcharhinus borneensis, 
Carcharhinus hemiodon, Carcharias taurus (Southwest Atlantic 
subpopulation), Cetorhinus maximus (North Pacific subpopulation), 
Cetorhinus maximus (Northeast Atlantic subpopulation), Haploblepharus 
kistnasamyi, Hemitriakis leucoperiptera, Holohalaelurus favus, 
Holohalaelurus punctatus, Lamiopsis temmincki, Squatina formosa, 
Squatina punctata, and Triakis acutipinna. In contrast, as described 
above, we find that there is substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for 9 of 
the 22 species and subpopulations of sharks and we hereby announce the 
initiation of a status review for each of these species to determine 
whether the petition action is warranted. These 9 species are: 
Centrophorus harrissoni, Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Mustelus fasciatus, 
Mustelus schmitti, Squatina aculeata, Squatina argentina, Squatina 
guggenheim, Squatina oculata, and Squatina squatina.

Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant 
to whether the nine species we believe may be warranted for listing 
(Centrophorus harrissoni, Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Mustelus fasciatus, 
Mustelus schmitti, Squatina aculeata, Squatina argentina, Squatina 
guggenheim, Squatina oculata, and Squatina squatina) are threatened or 
endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting information, including 
unpublished information, in the following areas: (1) Historical and 
current distribution and abundance of each species throughout its 
range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history 
information; (4)

[[Page 69391]]

data on trade of these species, including products such as fins, jaws, 
meat, and teeth; (5) historical and current data on catch, bycatch, 
retention, and discards in fisheries; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to 
protect and restore these species and their habitats; (7) any current 
or planned activities that may adversely impact these species; and (8) 
management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that 
all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as 
maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; 
and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, 
institution, or business that the person represents.

References Cited

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

Authority

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

    Dated: November 13, 2013.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and 
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27718 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P