[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1376-1385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00384]



[[Page 1376]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations

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

[[Page 1377]]

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

Species Description

Distribution

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

Physical Characteristics

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

[[Page 1378]]

Habitat

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

Feeding Ecology

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

Life History

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

Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files

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

Oceanic Whitetip Status and Trends

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

[[Page 1379]]

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

[[Page 1380]]

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

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

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

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

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

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

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

[[Page 1381]]

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

[[Page 1382]]

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

[[Page 1383]]

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

Disease and Predation

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

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 1384]]

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

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Existence

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

[[Page 1385]]

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

Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors

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

Petition Finding

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

Information Solicited

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

References Cited

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

Authority

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

    Dated: January 7, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-00384 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-00022-P