Proposed Rule2022-09032
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Tope Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 28, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to list the tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus) as a threatened or endangered species and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are commencing a review of the status of the tope shark to determine whether listing under the ESA is warranted. To support a comprehensive status review, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data regarding this species.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25209-25213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09032]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 220421-0103]
RTID 0648-XR121
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Tope Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to list the tope shark (Galeorhinus
galeus) as a threatened or endangered species and to designate critical
habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are commencing a
review of the status of the tope shark to determine whether listing
under the ESA is warranted. To support a comprehensive status review,
we are soliciting scientific and commercial data regarding this
species.
DATES: Scientific and commercial data pertinent to the petitioned
action must be received by June 27, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2022-0048 by the following method:
<bullet> Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and enter NOAA-NMFS-2022-0048 in the Search box.
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the petition online at the
NMFS website: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/petitions-awaiting-90-day-findings">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/petitions-awaiting-90-day-findings</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Manning, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources, (301) 427-8466, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0aca9b3a1eeada1aeaea9aea780aeafa1a1eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4d8ddc7d59ad9d5dadadddad3f4dadbd5d59ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 15, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity and Defend Them All Foundation to list the tope
shark, Galeorhinus galeus, as a threatened or endangered species under
the ESA and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing.
The petition asserts that G. galeus is threatened by four of the five
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) Present and threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes; (3)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (4) other natural or
manmade factors. In addition to requesting that we analyze whether the
[[Page 25210]]
tope shark warrants listing based on its status throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, the petition requests that we analyze
whether any distinct population segments (DPS) of tope shark warrant
listing. The petition also requests that, if we determine the tope
shark or any DPSs of tope shark warrant listing as a threatened
species, we promulgate a protective regulation under section 4(d) of
the ESA, and requests that we promulgate a regulation under section
4(e) of the ESA for species similar in appearance to the tope shark.
The petition is available online (see ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation
Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and any vertebrate DPS that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ``the Services'') policy
clarifies the Services' interpretation of DPSs for the purposes of
listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is
``endangered'' if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our
implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened
or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
to address identified threats; (5) or any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as ``credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted.'' Conclusions
drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial
information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the
petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR
424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable).
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information
on current population status and trends and estimates of current
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting
upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is
likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how
high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its
habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and
effectiveness of conservation activities by States as well as other
parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect
the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation
of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims
in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
We may also consider information readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide
electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright
law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g.,
publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR
424.14(c)(6).
At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research,
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to
help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners'
sources and characterizations of the information presented if they
appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long
as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners'
assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the
species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to
make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of
specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we first
[[Page 25211]]
evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, in light of
the information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, if we conclude the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information suggesting that the petitioned
entity may constitute a ``species,'' we evaluate whether the
information indicates that the species may face an extinction risk such
that listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may
be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status
and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the
species. We evaluate whether the petition presents any information on
specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk
for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity,
spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and
historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the
potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction
risk for the species. We then evaluate whether the petition presents
information suggesting potential links between these demographic risks
and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA.
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA.
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (<a href="https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories">https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories</a>). Additionally, species classifications
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications,
we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is
based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or
threats discussed above.
Tope Shark Species Description
The tope shark, G. galeus, is one of 39 recognized species within
the houndshark family, Triakidae, and is known by many other common
names, including soupfin shark and school shark. The tope sharks' range
includes most oceans, specifically the Northeast, Eastern Central,
Southwest and Southeast Atlantic Ocean; the Southwest, Southeast,
Western Central, Eastern Central, and Northeast Pacific Ocean; the
Mediterranean Sea, and the Eastern Indian Ocean. They can be found in
water depths of up to 826 meters, but prefer coastal areas and occur
most frequently within depths up to 200 m (Walker et al. 2020). Maximum
size varies regionally, with maximum lengths of up to about 6 feet (200
cm, (total length) and weights of up to 98.5 pounds 44.7 kg (Walker et
al. 2020; Florida Museum, Fish Profile 2021). Age at maturity may also
vary regionally and has been reported to range from about 10-15 years
for females and about 12-17 years for males (Walker et al. 2020,
COSEWIC 2007). Maximum lifespan is 40 to 60 years, and generation
length has been estimated to be 23 to 26.3 years (Walker et al. 2020,
COSEWIC 2007). Tope sharks reproduce every 1 to 3 years, although a
triennial cycle may be more common (Peres and Vooren 1991, Nosal et al.
2021). They are ovoviviparous (i.e., eggs are fertilized internally and
hatch internally, with no placental connection to the mother) and
produce litters of 20-35 pups on average after a roughly 12-month
gestation period (Walker et al. 2017, Nosal et al. 2021). The diet is
broad, and includes many teleost fishes (e.g., herring, sardines,
anchovies, hake, cod, salmon, halibut), as well as some invertebrates
(e.g., squid, octopus, crabs, annelids; Walker 1999; Florida Museum,
Fish Profile 2021).
Tope sharks are highly migratory and have been reported to occur in
small schools segregated by sex and age. Genetic and tagging data
indicate that the species may be structured as six regional
populations, delineated generally as Northeast Atlantic (includes the
Mediterranean Sea), southern Africa (Namibia to East London, South
Africa), Southwest Atlantic (southern Brazil to Patagonia), Northeast
Pacific (British Columbia to Mexico, including the Gulf of California),
Southeast Pacific (Ecuador to Chile), and Tasman Sea (Australia and New
Zealand; Chabot and Allen 2009, Hern[aacute]ndez 2013, Walker et al.
2020, Nosal et al. 2021).
Analysis of the Petition
The petition addresses a single species, G. galeaus; provides the
scientific and common names for this species; and clearly indicates the
administrative measures being requested. The petition also contains a
detailed, narrative justification for the requested listing under the
ESA and provides information on the species' taxonomy, geographic
distribution, and threats. Global abundance estimates appear to be
lacking for this species, but information is provided in the petition
and supporting references regarding population status and trends. The
petition is accompanied by literature citations and electronic copies
of supporting material, including published scientific literature, web
pages, and unpublished reports.
In the sections that follow, we provide a synopsis of our analysis
of the information provided in the petition and readily available in
our files regarding tope shark population status and trends and whether
and to what extent factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may
cause the tope shark to be an endangered species or a threatened
species.
Population Status and Trends
The petition presents information and references indicating that
the tope shark has declined in most parts of its range, and that these
declines have been driven by overharvest for commercial purposes. The
tope shark is currently categorized as ``critically endangered'' on the
IUCN Red List based on trend analyses of abundance indices indicating
steep declines in many parts of the range (Southwest Atlantic, southern
Africa, Australia, and
[[Page 25212]]
Northeast Atlantic) and an estimated median reduction of 88 percent for
the global population over three generations (79 years; Walker et al.
2020).
The most recent IUCN assessment by Walker et al. (2020) presents
the results of separate trend analyses completed using available data
from multiple geographic regions of the tope shark's range. For
instance, using standardized catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data from
three fishery-independent survey datasets from the northern (2005-2018)
and southern (1997-2016) Celtic Seas ecoregion and the Azores (1990-
2015), Walker et al. (2020) estimated annual rates of reduction of tope
shark in the Northeast Atlantic region of 1.7 percent and an estimated
median reduction of 76.6 percent over three generations (79 years).
Using limited CPUE data for the Southwest Atlantic (specifically
Argentina) from 1992-2015, they estimated annual rates of decline of
5.9 percent and a median reduction of 99.3 percent over three
generations. For Australia, Walker et al. (2020) used 74 years of stock
assessment abundance data, collected from 1927-2000, and estimated
annual rates of reduction of 2.8 percent and a median reduction of 90.1
percent over three generation lengths. Although the available data
suggest tope sharks in New Zealand and Australia are a single
population, Walker et al. (2020) also completed a separate trend
analysis for New Zealand. Using standardized CPUE data collected from
several locations off New Zealand during 1990-2016, they estimated
annual rates of decline of 0.5 percent and an estimated median
reduction of 29.8 percent over three generations (Walker et al. 2020).
A stock assessment has also been completed for tope shark in South
Africa, where it remains a commercially targeted species. Using
commercial fisheries catch data as well as scientific survey data, the
assessment indicated a continuous declining trend in tope shark
abundance at a rate of about 2.7 percent per year from 1991 to 2016,
and an estimated 85.1 percent decline over three generations (Winker et
al. 2019). No stock assessments or abundance indices appear to be
available for the Northeast Pacific region (COSEWIC 2007, Walker et al.
2020).
ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petition asserts that the tope shark is experiencing threats
under section 4(a)(1)(A) of the ESA as a result of habitat degradation
and destruction associated with climate change. The petition discusses
and provides references regarding direct and indirect climate-change-
driven impacts, including physical and chemical changes to ocean
habitats (e.g., ocean warming, increasing ocean acidity), changes in
ocean circulation patterns, declines in primary productivity and upper-
level consumers, range shifts for shark species, and negative health
consequences for sharks. Available scientific evidence has clearly
established that climate change has affected and continues to affect
the distributions of many marine species as well as their productivity
and phenology (Bindof et al. 2019, Morely et al. 2018). Experimental
results have also revealed that ocean warming and acidification
occurring under levels of carbon dioxide projected to occur by the end
of this century can impair prey detection (olfaction) and hunting
behavior and impact body condition and growth in some shark species
(Dixson et al. 2015, Pistevos et al. 2015, Rosa et al. 2017). Although
these various climate-change impacts are concerning, the extent to
which tope sharks in particular may be threatened by such impacts is
not clear based on the information in the petition or otherwise readily
available.
The petition also asserts that high voltage undersea cables are
degrading ocean habitats used by tope sharks and are contributing to
extinction risk for this species. Specific impacts from high voltage
undersea cables identified in the petition include interference with
tope sharks' navigation, feeding, and predation. However, information
to substantiate that tope sharks are being negatively affected by
undersea power cables is not provided and appears to be lacking in
general.
The petition identifies overutilization for commercial purposes
under section 4(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and inadequate management of
fisheries under section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA as the primary threats to
the tope shark. Information in the petition and the cited references
indicate that tope sharks have been fished commercially, typically with
gillnets and longlines, throughout most of their range for meat, fins,
and livers, which are rich in vitamin A. Demand for the liver oil in
particular led to relatively intense commercial harvest of tope sharks
during the 1930s and 1940s in several parts of its range, including the
Northeast Pacific, Southwest Atlantic, South Africa, Australia, and New
Zealand. This period of increased fishing pressure subsided fairly
quickly, however, as the demand for shark liver oil declined and, in
some locations, as stocks were depleted (COSEWIC 2007, Walker 1999).
For example, from 1937-1949, an estimated 840,000 tope sharks were
harvested in the Northeast Pacific for their livers, and the recorded
commercial catch declined from a peak of over 4,000 t in 1939 to 287 t
by 1944 (Walker 1999, Walker et al. 2020). This population is thought
to have collapsed as a result of overexploitation, and although it is
currently subject to a low level of commercial and recreational fishing
in California, its current status is unknown (COSEWIC 2007).
Information presented in the petition and cited references
regarding ongoing commercial fishing for and retention of tope sharks
in other parts of the range do suggest cause for concern. For instance,
in South Africa, results of the fairly recent stock assessment indicate
a greater than 99 percent probability that the stock is overfished and
subject to overfishing (Winker et al. 2019). The recent IUCN assessment
by Walker et al. (2020), citing a stock assessment for Australia,
states that the Australian government has classified the tope shark as
overfished and that the current biomass of this stock is below 20
percent of unexploited levels. The petition also notes that for the
Northeast Atlantic, the landings limit recommended in 2018 and 2019
(i.e., 376 t) by the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea (ICES) has been exceeded based on the incomplete annual landings
reported for tope shark during 2005-2018, which ranged from 542 t to
715 t (Walker et al. 2020).
Directed fishing for tope sharks is prohibited in several areas,
including the United Kingdom (since 2008, expect for rod and reel),
Mediterranean (since 2012), and Canada (since 2012). Other management
measures in place within some range countries to address both directed
and incidental take of tope sharks include limits on retention of
bycatch and daily catch limits, seasonal and spatial area closures
(e.g., breeding and nursery areas), quotas and limited entry systems,
and gear restrictions. Within the United States, Federal protections
(e.g., the Shark Conservation Act), as well as regulations in
individual States regarding possession, sale, and trade of shark fins
are being implemented to prevent the practice of shark finning (i.e.,
removing shark fins and discarding the body at sea). In 2020, the tope
shark was also listed on Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory
Species of Wild Animals, which does not directly confer protections on
the species, but does establish a framework and call upon Parties to
develop agreements to conserve the species. Evidence of stock recovery
or stabilization following implementation of some of these management
measures is noted for at least a few locations, including the
[[Page 25213]]
Northeast Pacific and Northeast Atlantic (Walker et al. 2020); however,
the available trend analyses and stock assessments discussed in the
petition suggest that existing management measures may be inadequate to
prevent population declines throughout most of the range. Recreational
catch of tope sharks is also unreported or under-reported, and
therefore its impact and any related management measures cannot be
fully assessed.
Lastly, the petition asserts that tope sharks are threatened by
toxic pollutants in the marine environment, including
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and trace metals (e.g., mercury). That sharks bioaccumulate
such contaminants has been well documented, and concentrations of
various contaminants in sharks have been shown to vary with multiple
factors such as diet, length, weight, sex, species, and habitat (Walker
1999, Lyons et al. 2013, Kibria and Haroon 2015). High mercury
concentrations in tope sharks in particular led to concerns over human
consumption of the meat and consequently impacted demand and affected
markets in some locations during and 1970s and 1980s (Walker 1999). The
petition states that bioaccumulation of toxic contaminants may have
negative health consequences for tope sharks, such as impaired immune
function, endocrine disruption, infertility, and birth defects.
However, information to indicate whether and how toxic contaminants are
negatively affecting tope shark health in particular is not provided
and may not be available.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition,
and other information readily available in our files, we find there is
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that
listing tope sharks under the ESA may be warranted. Therefore, in
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a status review of
this species. During the status review, we will determine whether G.
galeus is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so
(threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. As
the petition did not request that we consider listing any specific
DPSs, we will first assess the status of the taxonomic species, and
then based on that assessment, consider whether additional analysis of
potential DPSs is warranted and appropriate. As required by section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, within 12 months of the receipt of the petition
(February 15, 2023), we will make a finding as to whether listing the
tope shark (or any DPSs) as an endangered or threatened species is
warranted. If listing is warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and
solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
If applicable, the request to promulgate regulations under section 4(d)
and section 4(e) of the ESA would be considered in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and applicable Departmental
regulations, and appropriate action would be taken (50 CFR 424.14(j)).
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting relevant data and
information from interested parties regarding the tope shark.
Specifically, we are soliciting information for this species in the
following areas:
(1) Historical and current abundance and population trends
throughout its range;
(2) Historical and current distribution, population structure, and
genetic diversity;
(3) Current condition of its habitat and current and future threats
to these habitats;
(4) Historical and current data on bycatch and retention of tope
sharks in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries
throughout its range;
(5) Data on trade of tope shark and their products, including fins,
meat, and liver oil; and
(6) The effects of other known or potential threats to tope sharks
over the short-term or long-term; and
(7) Management, regulatory, or conservation programs for tope
sharks, including mitigation measures related to any known or potential
threats to the species within specific range countries.
We request that all data and information be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as reprints of pertinent publications or
bibliographic references. Please send any comments in accordance with
the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section above. We will base
our findings on a review of the best scientific and commercial data
available, including relevant information received during the public
comment period.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 22, 2022.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-09032 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 28, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.