Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List 6 Foreign Species of Elasmobranchs Under the Endangered Species Act, 21722-21741 [2017-09416]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21722-21741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09416]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

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


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

[[Page 21723]]

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

Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

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

Summary of Comments

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

[[Page 21724]]

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

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

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

[[Page 21725]]

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

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

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

[[Page 21726]]

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

[[Page 21727]]

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

Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 21728]]

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

[[Page 21729]]

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 21730]]

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

[[Page 21731]]

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

[[Page 21732]]

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

Comments on Demographic Risks to the Species

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

[[Page 21733]]

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

Comments Outside of the Scope of the Proposed Rule

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

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Listing Rule

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

[[Page 21734]]

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

Species Determinations

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Six Species

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

Narrownose Smoothhound

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

[[Page 21735]]

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

Spiny Angelshark

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

[[Page 21736]]

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

[[Page 21737]]

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

Extinction Risk

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

Narrownose Smoothhound Shark

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

Spiny Angelshark

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

Protective Efforts

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

Final Determination

    We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial 
information,

[[Page 21738]]

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

[[Page 21739]]

Effects of Listing

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

Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements

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

Critical Habitat

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

ESA Section 9 and 4(d) Prohibitions

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 21740]]

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

References

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

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

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

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

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

    Endangered and threatened species.


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

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

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

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

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


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


Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

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

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

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

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

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


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


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

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

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

[[Page 21741]]

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

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