Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11379 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Critical 

habitat 

ESA 

rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

Fishes 

Coelacanth, African 

(Tanzanian DPS).

Latimeria 

chalumnae.

African coelacanth population inhabiting deep waters off the coast of 

Tanzania.

[Insert Federal Register citation and 

date when published as a final 

rule].

NA NA 

*******

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–04405 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 141219999–5132–01] 

RIN 0648–XD680 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Common Thresher Shark as 

Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding, request for information, and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the 90- 

day finding for a petition to list the 

common thresher shark (Alopias 

vulpinus) as either endangered or 

threatened under the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) either worldwide or 

as one or more distinct population 

segments (DPSs) identified by the 

petitioners. We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

for the species worldwide. We find that 

the petition fails to present substantial 

scientific or commercial information to 

support the identification of DPSs of the 

common thresher suggested by the 

petitioners, and, as such, we find that 

the petitioned action of listing one or 

more of these DPSs is not warranted. 

Accordingly, we will initiate a review of 

the status of the common thresher shark 

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 

May 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2015–0025’’ by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0025. 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 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

Instructions: You must submit 

comments by one of the above methods 

to ensure that we receive, document, 

and consider them. 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. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted 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. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427– 

8491 or Marta Nammack, NMFS, OPR, 

(301) 427–8469. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 26, 2014, we received a 

petition from Friends of Animals 

requesting that we list the common 

thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

ESA, or, in the alternative, delineate six 

distinct population segments (DPSs) of 

the common thresher shark, as 

described in the petition, and list them 

as endangered or threatened. Friends of 

Animals also requested that critical 

habitat be designated for this species in 

U.S. waters concurrent with final ESA 

listing. 

The petitioner states that the common 

thresher shark merits listing as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the ESA because of the following: (1) 

The species faces threats from historical 

and continued fishing for both 

commercial and recreational purposes; 

(2) life history characteristics and 

limited ability to recover from fishing 

pressure makes the species particularly 

vulnerable to overexploitation; and (3) 

there is a lack of regulations that 

specifically protect the common 

thresher shark. 

ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy 

Considerations 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, 

as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to list a species as 

threatened or endangered, the Secretary 

of Commerce make a finding on whether 

that petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, and 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 nongovernmental 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 common thresher shark (Alopias 

vulpinus) is a large highly migratory 

pelagic species of shark found 

throughout the world in temperate and 

tropical seas. In the North Atlantic, 

common thresher sharks occur from 

Newfoundland, Canada, to Cuba in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11381 

west and from Norway and the British 

Isles to the African coast in the east 

(Gervelis, 2013). Landings along the 

South Atlantic coast of the United States 

and in the Gulf of Mexico are rare. 

Common thresher sharks also occur 

along the Atlantic coast of South 

America from Venezuela to southern 

Argentina. In the eastern Atlantic, A. 

vulpinus ranges from the central coast of 

Norway south to, and including, the 

Mediterranean Sea and down the 

African coast to the Ivory Coast. They 

appear to be most abundant along the 

Iberian coastline, particularly during 

spring and fall. Specimens have also 

been recorded at Cape Province, South 

Africa (Goldman, 2009). In the Indian 

Ocean, A. vulpinus is found along the 

east coast of Somalia, and in waters 

adjacent to the Maldive Islands and 

Chagos archipelago. They are also 

present off Australia (Tasmania to 

central Western Australia), Sumatra, 

Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Oman, 

Kenya, the northwestern coast of 

Madagascar and South Africa. A few 

specimens have been taken from 

southwest of the Chagos archipelago, 

the Gulf of Aden, and northwest Red 

Sea. In the western Pacific Ocean, the 

range of A. vulpinus includes southern 

Japan, Korea, China, parts of Australia 

and New Zealand. They are also present 

around several Pacific Islands, 

including New Caledonia, Society 

Islands, Fanning Islands and Hawaii. In 

the Northeast Pacific Ocean, the 

geographic range of common thresher 

sharks extends from Goose Bay, British 

Columbia, Canada to the Baja Peninsula, 

Mexico and out to about 200 miles from 

the coast (Goldman, 2009). 

Additionally, they are found off Chile 

and records exist from Panama 

(Campagno, 1984). 

Physical Characteristics 

The common thresher shark possesses 

an elongated upper caudal lobe almost 

equal to its body length, which is 

unique to this family. It has a 

moderately large eye, a broad head, 

short snout, narrow tipped pectoral fins, 

no grooves on the head above the gills, 

and lateral teeth without distinct 

cusplets. The origin of the pelvic fins is 

well behind the insertion of the first 

dorsal fin. While some of the above 

characteristics may be shared by other 

thresher shark species, diagnostic 

features separating this species from the 

other two thresher shark species (bigeye 

thresher, A. superciliosus, and pelagic 

thresher, A. pelagicus) are the presence 

of labial furrows, the origin of the 

second dorsal fin posterior to the end of 

the pelvic fin free rear tip, and the white 

color of the abdomen extending upward 

over the pectoral fin bases, and again 

rearward of the pelvic fins. In living 

specimens, dorsal coloration may vary 

from brown, blue slate, slate gray, blue 

gray, and dark lead to nearly black, with 

a metallic, often purplish, luster. The 

lower surface of the snout (forward of 

the nostrils) and pectoral fin bases are 

generally not white and may be the 

same color as the dorsal surface 

(Goldman, 2009). 

Habitat 

Surveys of the common thresher shark 

from our Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center (SWFSC) demonstrate habitat 

separation between juveniles and adults 

(PMFC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). 

Juveniles occupy relatively shallow 

water over the continental shelf, while 

adults are found in deeper water, but 

rarely range beyond 200 miles (321.87 

km) from the coast (PMFC, 2003; Smith 

et al., 2008). Both adults and juveniles 

are associated with highly biologically 

productive waters, found in regions of 

upwelling or intense mixing. 

Feeding Ecology 

Common thresher sharks feed at midtrophic levels on small pelagic fish and 

squid. Given their more specialized diet 

compared to other local pelagic sharks, 

they are more likely to exert top-down 

effects on their prey, although this 

remains to be demonstrated. Based on 

studies at the SWFSC, the top six prey 

species, in order, are northern anchovy, 

Pacific sardine, Pacific hake, Pacific 

mackerel, jack mackerel, and market 

squid (Preti et al., 2001, 2004). Thresher 

sharks are unique, in that they use their 

tail in a whip-like fashion to disorient 

and incapacitate their prey (Oliver, 

2013). 

Life History 

The life span of the common thresher 

shark is estimated between 15 and 50 

years, although additional research to 

confirm this is necessary (Gervalis, 

2013). Thresher sharks reach maturity at 

approximately 5 years of age and at 

around 166 cm fork length for both 

sexes. They grow approximately 30 cm 

per year for the first 5 years of their lives 

(Gervalis, 2013; Smith et al., 2008). 

Maximum size has been estimated for 

thresher sharks along the U.S. West 

Coast at 550 cm (Gervalis, 2013; Smith 

et al., 2008). Their mode of 

reproduction is aplacental 

ovoviviparous and oophagous, and a 

typical litter size is 2–4 pups, with 

gestation thought to be around 9 months 

(NMFS Common Thresher Shark Fact 

Sheet; PMFC, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). 

Pupping is thought to occur in the 

springtime, with mating thought to 

occur in the summer, and nursery 

grounds for pups are in shallow 

continental shelf waters 90 m deep or 

less (NMFS Common Thresher Shark 

Fact Sheet). 

Analysis of DPS Information 

The petition requests that we list the 

common thresher shark throughout its 

range, or list the species as six DPSs. 

The petitioner identifies six 

subpopulations that it believes may 

qualify for listing: Eastern Central 

Pacific, Indo-West Pacific, Northwest 

and Western Central Atlantic, 

Southwest Atlantic, Mediterranean, and 

Northeast Atlantic. To meet the 

definition of a DPS, a population must 

be both discrete from other populations 

of the species and significant to the 

species as a whole (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996). 

The petition does not provide 

biological evidence to support the 

existence of the six ‘‘subpopulations’’ 

identified; however, the petition states 

that six subpopulations of the common 

thresher shark are discrete. The petition 

goes on to define this discreteness 

according to the second discreteness 

factor listed in the NMFS/USFWS joint 

DPS policy, where a population can be 

considered discrete if it ‘‘is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.’’ 

The petitioner maintains that the ‘‘broad 

and varied spectrum of harvest control, 

habitat management, conservation 

status, and regulatory mechanisms’’ 

addressing the species may qualify 

different ‘‘subpopulations’’ as discrete 

under this discreteness factor, asserting 

that, ‘‘due to broad differences in 

regulation of their management and 

capture, the subpopulations of common 

thresher sharks should be considered 

sufficiently discrete for protection as 

DPSs under the ESA.’’ 

The petition does not propose any 

boundaries for the six suggested DPSs, 

nor does the petition describe in any 

detail the ways in which different 

management relating to international 

governmental boundaries may delineate 

the species into boundaries aligning 

with the six suggested DPSs. Specific 

gaps in management or 

intergovernmental boundaries are not 

described as they relate to any of the six 

proposed DPSs. We were also unable to 

find information to define the six 

subpopulations as discrete on biological 

grounds. In our files, only a single 

preliminary study was available to 

suggest population structure of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

common thresher shark. This study 

examined mitochondrial control region 

DNA, which demonstrated significant 

population structure between most 

pairwise comparisons, but the sample 

sizes were extremely low, and thus the 

results could not be interpreted with 

confidence. The data support separate 

Atlantic vs. Pacific populations (or at 

least female philopatry) (Trejo, 2005). 

However, based on the preliminary 

nature of these data, and low sample 

size throughout the study, these results 

cannot be relied upon to divide the 

common thresher shark into the six 

subpopulations proposed by the 

petition. 

Based on information in the petition 

and readily available in our files, we 

were unable to find evidence to support 

the discreteness of any of the six DPSs 

proposed. Because of this, arguments 

made by the petitioner describing the 

potential significance of any suggested 

DPS are irrelevant. Thus, we conclude 

that the petition provides insufficient 

evidence to identify any DPSs of the 

common thresher shark at this time. 

Analysis of Petition and Information 

Readily Available in NMFS Files 

The following sections contain 

information found in the petition and 

readily available in our files to 

determine whether a reasonable person 

would conclude 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. 

Common Thresher Shark Status and 

Trends 

The petition does not provide a 

population abundance estimate for 

common thresher sharks, but points to 

its ‘‘vulnerable’’ status on the IUCN Red 

List, and quotes extensively from the 

Encyclopedia of Life, an online 

collaborative database intended for 

documenting information on all species 

of life. The petition asserts that a global 

decline of common thresher sharks has 

been caused mainly by commercial and 

recreational fishing (both direct harvest 

and bycatch), particularly during the 

1970s and early 1980s. The petition 

references high commercial catch rates 

for common threshers along the U.S. 

West Coast during the 1980s, and 

declines in catch by the mid-1990s, 

indicative of overexploitation (Goldman 

et al., 2009). In the Northwest and 

Western Central Atlantic, the petition 

cites the Encyclopedia of Life for 

asserting 50–80 percent declines in 

common thresher shark abundance 

occurring from 1986–2005. The petition 

describes likely declines of common 

thresher sharks in the Mediterranean 

due to high fishing pressure. In the 

Northeast Atlantic, the petition 

describes variable landings prior to 2000 

and a decline in landings since 2002 

(ICES, 2006). Finally, the petition points 

to increased interest in recreational 

fishing of the common thresher shark, 

with the potential for high post-release 

mortality. The petition does not provide 

information on estimates of abundance 

across the range of the species. 

Although historical overfishing of the 

common thresher shark led to serious 

declines in population abundance, 

particularly during the 1980s, 

regulations since the early 1990s have 

contributed to trends of rebuilding of 

the species over the past two decades in 

some portions of its range, particularly 

in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (PFMC, 

2011; NMFS Common Thresher Shark 

Fact Sheet). However, in other portions 

of the species’ global range, declines 

due to overutilization (bycatch, 

recreation, and directed catch) may be 

ongoing, leading to declines in 

abundance. The threat of commercial 

fishing is discussed in more detail 

below (see ‘‘Overutilization’’). 

The last IUCN assessment of the 

common thresher shark was completed 

in 2009 and since then several estimates 

of global and subpopulation trends and 

status have been made. Perhaps most 

heavily studied have been common 

thresher sharks in the Eastern Pacific 

Ocean, where the shark has historically 

been most heavily fished. Commercial 

fishing of thresher sharks in the U.S. 

was eliminated by gill net regulations by 

1990, and within a decade, the 

population began to slowly rebuild to 

just below 50 percent of the initial 

subpopulation size (Camhi et al., 2007). 

A preliminary examination of trends in 

the catch-per-unit-effort and total catch 

of common thresher sharks in this 

region is consistent with earlier 

conclusions that the population is 

increasing from its decline in the late 

1980s and early 1990s (PMFC, 2011). 

Efforts to conduct a full stock 

assessment have been initiated by 

NMFS. Based on preliminary stock 

assessment results, there appears to be 

an initial period of decline from 1981 to 

1986, followed by a gradual recovery of 

the stock. The index is highly variable 

after 2000, which is possibly due to 

regulatory and operational changes in 

the fishery (SWFSC, unpublished data). 

In the Northwest Atlantic, declines in 

relative abundance cited by the 

petitioner were derived from analyses of 

logbook data, reported in Corte ́s (2007). 

This study reported a 63 percent decline 

of thresher sharks (on the genus level) 

based on logbook data, occurring 

between 1986 and 2006 (Corte ́s, 2007). 

The observer index data from the same 

study shows an opposite trend in 

relative abundance, with a 28 percent 

increase of threshers in the Northwest 

Atlantic since 1992. Logbook data over 

the same period (1992–2006) showed a 

50 percent decline in thresher sharks. 

The logbook dataset is the largest 

available for the western North Atlantic 

Ocean, but the observer dataset is 

generally more reliable in terms of 

consistent identification and reporting. 

According to observer data, relative 

abundance of thresher sharks (again, 

only at the genus level) in the western 

North Atlantic Ocean appears to have 

stabilized or even be increasing since 

the late 1990s (Corte ́s, 2007). A more 

recent analysis using logbook data 

between 1996 and 2005 provides some 

supporting evidence that the abundance 

of thresher sharks has stabilized over 

this time period (Baum, 2010). However, 

the conflicting evidence between 

logbook and observer data showing 

opposite trends in thresher shark 

abundance cannot be fully resolved at 

this time. Data are not available in the 

petition or in our own files to assess the 

trend in population abundance in this 

region since 2006, or to assess the trend 

specific to the common thresher shark. 

Because the logbook data from this 

region shows consistent evidence of a 

significant and continued decline in 

thresher sharks, we must consider this 

information in our 90-day 

determination. 

For the Northeast Atlantic, there are 

no population abundance estimates 

available, but data indicate that the 

species is taken in driftnets and gillnets. 

In the Mediterranean Sea, estimates 

show significant declines in thresher 

shark abundance during the past two 

decades, reflecting data up to 2006; 

according to historical data compiled 

using a generalized linear model, 

thresher sharks have declined between 

96 and 99 percent in abundance and 

biomass in the Mediterranean Sea 

(Ferretti et al., 2008). 

In other areas of the world, estimates 

of thresher shark abundance are limited. 

For the Indo-West Pacific, little 

information is currently available on 

common thresher sharks. Although 

pelagic fishing effort in this region is 

high, with reported increases in recent 

years, the common thresher shark is 

more characteristic of cooler waters, and 

further information needs to be 

collected on records and catches of the 

species in this region (IUCN assessment, 

2009). 

In conclusion, trends throughout the 

Eastern Pacific Ocean portion of the 

species’ range suggest that the 

population there is rebuilding from 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11383 

historical overexploitation. However, 

across the rest of its global range, we 

find evidence suggesting that 

population abundance of common 

thresher sharks has continued to decline 

or, as in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, 

may be stable at a diminished 

abundance. 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 common thresher shark 

abundance, trends, or status to indicate 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. 

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors 

The petition indicated three main 

categories of threats to the common 

thresher shark: Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

discuss each of these below, as well as 

an additional evaluation of other 4(a)(1) 

factors based on information in the 

petition, and the information readily 

available in our files. 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification or Curtailment of Habitat 

or Range 

The petition does not list threats to 

habitat as impacting the common 

thresher shark. In our files, we were also 

unable to find evidence that destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range were negatively impacting the 

species. Supporting this conclusion, in 

our files, we found evidence 

demonstrating that habitat pollution has 

not resulted in high concentrations of 

pollutants in the bodies of common 

thresher sharks. For example, Suk et al. 

(2009) demonstrated that the level of 

mercury measured in the muscle of 

individual thresher sharks was quite 

low (mean 0.13 ± 0.15 mg/g), with no 

traces of mercury detected in the liver. 

Mercury concentration increased with 

shark size to a maximum of 0.7 mg/g for 

a 241 cm fork length (∼ 425 lb) 

individual, still far lower than for other 

sharks examined in the study, including 

the shortfin mako and the sevengill 

shark (Suk et al., 2009). Although data 

are unavailable to assess the impact of 

these mercury levels on the health of the 

common thresher shark, low mercury 

levels exhibited by the common 

thresher shark likely relate to its 

tendency to feed on small schooling fish 

and cephalopods, at lower trophic levels 

than the prey consumed by other sharks 

studied. 

In summary, the petition, references 

cited, and information in our files do 

not comprise substantial information 

indicating there is present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the common thresher 

shark’s habitat or range such that listing 

may be warranted. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition states that ‘‘historical 

and continued trends of fishing of this 

commercially and recreationally 

valuable shark remain a threat,’’ listing 

commercial exploitation as the first 

threat of overutilization of the species. 

Historically, common thresher sharks 

were primarily caught in the drift gillnet 

fishery established off the West Coast of 

the United States, which targeted the 

species in the late 1970s. The fishery 

had shifted its focus to a swordfish 

fishery by the mid-1980s due to 

economic drivers, but also to protect 

pupping female thresher sharks (PFMC, 

2003). Since that time, common thresher 

sharks have only been targeted 

secondarily or caught incidentally in the 

drift gillnet fishery there. West Coast 

commercial landings are down from 

1,800 metric tons (mt) in the early 1980s 

to below 200 mt in 2008 and 2009 

(PFMC, 2010). As stated above, based on 

preliminary stock assessment results, 

there appears to be an initial period of 

decline from 1981 to 1986, followed by 

a gradual rebuilding of the stock (NMFS 

SWFSC, unpublished data). Average 

annual landings since 2004 have been 

about 200 mt (PFMC, 2011), well below 

an established sustainable and 

precautionary harvest level of 450 mt, 

and this level of landings has allowed 

the population to further rebuild. 

Regulations on commercial fishing 

operations (e.g., time and area closures) 

to protect gravid females during the 

pupping season (March through 

August), combined with a switch in the 

primary target of the driftnet fishery 

from thresher sharks to swordfish, have 

likely contributed to the rebuilding of 

the common thresher shark in the 

Eastern Pacific Ocean over the past 25 

years (PMFC, 2003). 

The petition states that in addition to 

broad commercial harvest of the species, 

direct catch related to the shark fin trade 

has resulted in population decline. No 

information connecting population 

declines as a result of this direct catch 

is provided in the petition. The petition 

states that common thresher shark fins 

are valuable due to their large size and 

longer fin needles. Evidence suggests 

that the three thresher shark species, 

collectively, may account for 

approximately 2.3 percent of the fins 

auctioned in Hong Kong, the world’s 

largest fin-trading center (Clarke, 2006). 

This translates to 0.4 million to 3.9 

million threshers that may enter the 

global fin trade each year (Clarke, 2006). 

However, information on the speciesspecific impact of this harvest on 

common thresher shark abundance is 

not provided by the petitioner, and is 

not available in our files. The bigeye 

thresher shark is of higher value and 

vulnerability to fishing than the 

common thresher shark (Cortez, 2010); 

however, the relative proportion of each 

thresher shark species comprising the 

shark-fin trade is not available in this 

genus-level assessment. Overall, 

evidence that common thresher sharks 

(and threshers in general) are highly 

valued for their fins and comprise a 

portion of the Hong Kong fin-trading 

auction suggests that this threat may 

impact the species. 

Indirect catch is another category of 

overutilization identified by the 

petition, which states that post-release 

mortality may be high in the species. 

However, no information is provided in 

the petition to connect the effect of 

bycatch on population declines of the 

species. In our own files, we found 

evidence to support that adults and 

juveniles of common thresher shark are 

caught as bycatch in longline, purse 

seine and mid-water fisheries (IATTC, 

2006). As stated in the petition, in the 

Northeast Atlantic Ocean prior to 2000, 

estimated landings fluctuated at 13–17 t, 

and in 2000–2001 they exceeded 100 t, 

after which they dropped to 4 t in 2002 

and have not exceeded 7 t since (ICES, 

2006). In the Mediterranean, there are 

no large-scale fisheries targeting pelagic 

sharks and rays, but these species are 

taken as bycatch in surface longline 

fisheries (Cahmi, 2009). In our files, we 

found evidence that, in the last two 

decades, common thresher sharks have 

declined between 96 and 99 percent in 

abundance and biomass in the 

Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti, 2008). 

Currently, there is no commercial 

fishery for common thresher sharks on 

the East Coast of the United States, but 

they are taken as bycatch on pelagic 

longlines and in gillnets; here, 

commercial bycatch landings averaged 

19,958 kg (dressed weight) from 2003 to 

2011, with landings peaking at 27,801 

kg (dressed weight) in 2010 (NMFS, 

2012; Gervalis et al., 2013). These 

landings may be linked to declines in 

the species across the Northwest 

Atlantic portion of its range; however, 

as discussed earlier, conflicting logbook 

and observer data decrease the certainty 

of these trends (Corte ́s, 2007; Baum, 

2010). In the Southwest Atlantic Ocean, 

off the coast of Brazil, big eye thresher 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11384 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

sharks represent almost 100 percent of 

thresher sharks caught, and only 

occasionally are common thresher 

sharks caught in the longline fishery 

(Amorin, 1998). 

The petition identified recreational 

fishing as the fourth category of 

overutilization. In our files, we found 

evidence that common thresher sharks 

are valued by recreational sport 

fishermen throughout the species’ U.S. 

East Coast and West Coast range, and 

those that are caught are generally 

landed; the common thresher shark is 

considered one of the better species for 

human consumption (Compagno, 2001). 

The species appears to be increasing in 

importance at shark tournaments in the 

Northeastern United States. As 

described in the petition, at one major 

tournament, common thresher shark 

numbers increased steadily such that 

the percent of total catch increased from 

0.1 percent to 4.8 from 1965 to 1995 and 

jumped to 27.8 percent of the total catch 

in 2004 (Gervalis et al., 2013). Heberer 

(2010) identified the potential negative 

impact of recreational fishing on the 

survival of the common thresher shark 

by assessing post-release survivorship of 

sharks captured using the caudal-finbased techniques used by most 

recreational fishermen. Since common 

thresher sharks use their elongate upper 

caudal lobe to immobilize prey before it 

is consumed, the majority of thresher 

sharks captured in the recreational 

fishery are hooked in the caudal fin and 

hauled-in backwards (Heberer, 2010). 

The common thresher is an obligate ram 

ventilator that requires forward motion 

to ventilate the gills (Heberer, 2010). 

The reduced ability to extract oxygen 

from the water during capture as well as 

the stress induced from these capture 

methods may influence recovery 

following release. The findings of 

Heberer (2010) demonstrate that large 

tail-hooked common thresher sharks 

with prolonged fight times (≥85 min) 

exhibit a heightened stress response, 

which may contribute to an increased 

mortality rate. This work suggests, 

especially for larger thresher sharks, that 

recreational catch-and-release may not 

be an effective conservation-based 

strategy for the species. A recent paper 

by Sepulveda (2014) found similar 

evidence for high post-release mortality 

of recreationally caught common 

thresher sharks in the California 

recreational shark fishery. Their results 

demonstrated that caudal-fin-based 

angling techniques, which often result 

in trailing gear left embedded in the 

shark, can negatively affect post-release 

survivorship. This work suggests that 

mouth-based angling techniques can, 

when performed properly, result in a 

higher survivorship of released sharks. 

However, these techniques are not a 

common practice. Recreational catch 

varies widely from year to year but has 

averaged roughly 20 mt annually in 

recent years (CDFG, 2008). The 

estimated level of catch in this fishery 

may be imprecise because the fishery is 

patchy and sporadic. Although 

recreational catch rate data are 

unavailable or highly unreliable, 

evidence for high post-release mortality 

suggests that increases in recreational 

fishing may pose a threat to the common 

thresher shark. 

Overall, trends throughout the Eastern 

Pacific Ocean suggest that the species 

either may be rebuilding from historical 

overexploitation, or may be stable. 

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. While 

measures may be implemented to 

improve post-release mortality of a 

recreational common thresher shark 

fishery, and to reduce bycatch, we 

found no evidence that these measures 

have been incorporated into common 

practice. 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, recreational, scientific or 

educational purposes. 

Disease and Predation 

The petitioner does not identify 

predation and disease as a threat to the 

common thresher shark, and we were 

unable to find any information in our 

files to suggest that this factor is 

affecting the continued survival of the 

species. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The petition states that ‘‘the U.S. does 

not provide adequate protection for this 

species. Additionally, this global 

species lacks international protection 

under the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), 

and regional management mechanisms 

remain ineffective.’’ 

On the contrary, we found that 

national fishing regulations on common 

thresher shark fishing in the United 

States are precautionary, and have led to 

the rebuilding of the species in U.S. 

waters over the last two decades. The 

Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West 

Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory 

Species includes an annual harvest 

guideline of 340 mt for thresher shark. 

This is a precautionary harvest 

guideline for commercial catch, which 

is estimated to be 75 percent of the 

regional maximum sustainable yield for 

this population. Time and area 

restrictions in the pelagic drift gillnet 

fishery were imposed off California in 

the mid-1980s to protect thresher 

sharks, and more regulations were 

added in 2000 to protect sea turtles, 

resulting in reduced effort. In the United 

States Atlantic Ocean, the species has 

been managed as part of the pelagic 

shark complex under the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan. 

Management measures include the 

following: Commercial quotas, limited 

entry, time-area closures, and 

recreational bag limits. Sharks are 

required to be landed with fins naturally 

attached to the carcass. Overfishing and 

overfished status is currently unknown 

(NMFS HMS 3rd Qtr 2011 stock status), 

but preliminary stock assessment data 

suggest that the species is rebuilding in 

U.S. waters due to management 

measures to conserve the species 

(SWFSC, unpublished). 

Since we received the petition, the 

common thresher shark has been listed 

in Appendix II under the International 

Convention on the Conservation of 

Migratory Species of Wild Animals 

(CMS). The petitioner stated that there 

are no laws specifically addressing the 

needs of the common thresher shark; 

however, a CMS Appendix II listing 

now encourages international 

cooperation towards conservation of the 

species. 

We agree with the petition that the 

majority of other international 

regulations provide general protection 

for all sharks, and that includes the 

common thresher shark. The petition 

asserts that finning regulations are 

‘‘inadequate’’ for protecting the common 

thresher shark species because common 

thresher sharks may still be caught, 

either directly or indirectly as bycatch. 

The petition also cites several regional 

fisheries management organizations 

(RFMOs) that implement a 5-percent 

fin-to-carcass ratio regulation, describes 

what the petitioner contends are 

potential loopholes in those regulations, 

and states that these general regulations 

are inadequate for the common thresher 

shark, whose larger fins make it a more 

targeted species. We agree with the 

petitioner that the common thresher 

shark is highly valued for its fins, and 

can be identified in the shark fin 

market, although only to the genus 

level. However, we do not find that 

national and international regulations 

are inadequate for protecting the 

common thresher shark. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11385 

Finning regulations are a common 

form of shark management regulation 

and have been adopted by far more 

countries and regional fishery 

management organizations than the 

petition lists (see HSI, 2012). While the 

petitioner asserts that there may be 

some loopholes in regulations using a 

5% fin-to-carcass ratio, we find that the 

common thresher shark is rebuilding in 

broad portions of its range and is of 

lower vulnerability due to its 

demographic characteristics, such that 

current regulations are not considered 

inadequate. In addition, a number of 

countries have also enacted complete 

shark fishing bans, with the Bahamas, 

Marshall Islands, Honduras, Sabah 

(Malaysia), and Tokelau (an island 

territory of New Zealand) added to the 

list in 2011, and an area of 1.9 million 

km off the Cook Islands added in 2012. 

The petition states that Tokelau and the 

Cook Islands have only partial fishing 

bans, but this statement appears to be 

based on incomplete information. Shark 

sanctuaries can also be found in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape 

(which encompasses around 2,000,000 

km2 and includes the Galapagos, Cocos, 

and Malpelo Islands), and in waters off 

the Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, and 

French Polynesia. Countries, states, and 

territories that prohibit the sale or trade 

of shark fins or products include the 

Bahamas, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, American 

Samoa, Cook Islands, Egypt, French 

Polynesia, Guam, Republic of Marshall 

Islands, and Sabah. Several U.S. States 

prohibit the sale or trade of shark fins/ 

products as well, including Hawaii, 

Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois, 

Maryland, Delaware, New York and 

Massachusetts. The U.S. Shark 

Conservation Act of 2010 protects all 

shark species, making it illegal to 

remove any of the fins of a shark 

(including the tail) at sea; to have 

custody, control, or possession of any 

such fin aboard a fishing vessel unless 

it is naturally attached to the 

corresponding carcass; to transfer any 

such fin from one vessel to another 

vessel at sea, or to receive any such fin 

in such transfer, without the fin 

naturally attached to the corresponding 

carcass; or to land any such fin that is 

not naturally attached to the 

corresponding carcass, or to land any 

shark carcass without such fins 

naturally attached. Additionally, many 

cities in Canada also prohibit the sale or 

trade of shark fins/products. All of these 

measures provide protections for the 

global common thresher shark 

population. 

The petition also mentions the lack of 

CITES protections for the common 

thresher shark. The common thresher 

shark is not a CITES listed species, 

however, a CITES listing would only 

address threats associated with the 

international trade of the species, and 

would not address such impacts as 

bycatch or recreational catch-andrelease of the species. Although a CITES 

Appendix II listing or international 

reporting requirements would provide 

better data on the global catch and trade 

of the common thresher shark, the lack 

of a CITES listing or requirements 

would not suggest that current 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to protect the common thresher shark 

population from becoming endangered 

under the ESA. 

In summary, the petition, references 

cited, and information in our files do 

not comprise substantial information 

indicating that the species is impacted 

by inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms such that listing may be 

warranted. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Existence 

The petition states that the biological 

constraints of the common thresher 

shark, such as its low reproduction rate 

(typically 2–4 pups a year), coupled 

with the time required to reach maturity 

(approximately 5 years), contribute to 

the species’ vulnerability to harvesting 

and its inability to recover rapidly. It is 

true that the common thresher shark 

and pelagic sharks, in general, exhibit 

relatively slow growth rates and low 

fecundity; however, not all species are 

equally vulnerable to fishing pressure 

due to these life history characteristics. 

An ecological risk assessment 

conducted to inform the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) categorized the 

relative risk of overexploitation of the 

11 major species of pelagic sharks, 

including the common thresher shark 

(Corte ́s et al., 2010, 2012). 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 

long line] on a species will exceed its 

biological ability to renew itself’’ (Corte ́s 

et al., 2010, 2012). This robust 

assessment found that common thresher 

sharks, along with pelagic stingrays, are 

relatively productive species that show 

very low susceptibility to the combined 

pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic 

Ocean (Corte ́s et al., 2010, 2012). In fact, 

of 11 species examined, common 

thresher sharks exhibited one of the 

lowest vulnerability rankings. The 

relatively low vulnerability of the 

common thresher shark is further 

supported by a recent comparison of 

demographic models which ranked 26 

pelagic sharks according to their 

potential growth rate and rebound 

potential (Chapple et al., 2013). The 

common thresher shark was found to 

rank 9 out of 26 overall in terms of its 

egg production, rebound potential, 

potential for population increase, and 

for its stochastic growth rate; again 

ranking among the highest in 

productivity when compared with other 

pelagic sharks (Chapple et al., 2013). 

Even within the genus Alopiidae, the 

common thresher shark is considered 

the fastest-growing and earliestmaturing of the three species, and 

attains the largest size (Smith et al., 

2008). 

In summary, the petition, references 

cited, and information in our files do 

not comprise substantial information 

indicating that the species is impacted 

by ‘‘other natural or manmade factors,’’ 

including the life history trait of slow 

productivity, such that listing of the 

species may be warranted. 

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 

‘‘other manmade or natural factors’’ or 

‘‘inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms’’ 

may be causing or contributing to an 

increased risk of extinction for the 

global population of the common 

thresher shark. In addition, neither the 

petition nor information in our files 

indicated that the ‘‘present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range,’’ or 

‘‘disease or predation’’ are threats to the 

species. However, we do conclude that 

the petition and information in our files 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the section 4(a)(1) factor 

‘‘overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes’’ 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 presents substantial scientific and 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action of listing the 

common thresher shark worldwide as 

threatened or endangered may be 

warranted. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and 

NMFS’ implementing regulations (50 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

CFR 424.14(b)(2)), 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 common thresher shark to 

be a candidate species (69 FR 19975; 

April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of 

the receipt of the petition (August 26, 

2015), 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 

common thresher 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 common thresher shark 

bycatch and retention in industrial, 

commercial, artisanal, and recreational 

fisheries worldwide; (5) historical and 

current data on common thresher shark 

discards in global fisheries; (6) data on 

the trade of common thresher 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: February 25, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04409 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS