2916 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix B to Part 1194—Section 255 

of the Communications Act: 

Application and Scoping Requirements 

* * * * * 

C204.1 * * * 

EXCEPTION: Components of 

telecommunications equipment and 

customer premises equipment shall not be 

required to conform to 402, 407.7, 407.8, 408, 

412.8.4, and 415. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In appendix C to part 1194, add 

sections 412.8, 412.8.1, 412.8.2, 412.8.3, 

and 412.8.4 in numerical order to read 

as follows: 

Appendix C to Part 1194—Functional 

Performance Criteria and Technical 

* * * * * 

412 ICT With Two-Way Voice 

Communication 

* * * * * 

412.8 Legacy TTY Support. ICT 

equipment or systems with two-way voice 

communication that do not themselves 

provide TTY functionality shall conform to 

412.8. 

412.8.1 TTY Connectability. ICT shall 

include a standard non-acoustic connection 

point for TTYs. 

412.8.2 Voice and Hearing Carry Over. 

ICT shall provide a microphone capable of 

being turned on and off to allow the user to 

intermix speech with TTY use. 

412.8.3 Signal Compatibility. ICT shall 

support all commonly used crossmanufacturer non-proprietary standard TTY 

signal protocols where the system 

interoperates with the Public Switched 

Telephone Network (PSTN). 

412.8.4 Voice Mail and Other Messaging 

Systems. Where provided, voice mail, autoattendant, interactive voice response, and 

caller identification systems shall be usable 

with a TTY. 

* * * * * 

Approved by notational vote of the Access 

Board on January 12, 2018. 

David M. Capozzi, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00848 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 160105011–7999–03] 

RIN 0648–XE390 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Rule To List the Giant 

Manta Ray as Threatened Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a final 

rule to list the giant manta ray (Manta 

birostris) as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have 

reviewed the status of the giant manta 

ray, including efforts being made to 

protect this species, and considered 

public comments submitted on the 

proposed rule as well as new 

information received since publication 

of the proposed rule. We have made our 

final determinations based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. At this time, we conclude that 

critical habitat is not determinable 

because data sufficient to perform the 

required analyses are lacking; however, 

we solicit information on habitat 

features and areas in U.S. waters that 

may meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the giant manta ray. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 21, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Endangered Species 

Division, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Copies of the petition, status review 

report, and Federal Register notices are 

available on our website at http://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/ 

manta-ray.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maggie Miller, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, (301) 427–8403. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 10, 2015, we received 

a petition from Defenders of Wildlife to 

list the giant manta ray (M. birostris), 

reef manta ray (M. alfredi) and 

Caribbean manta ray (M. c.f. birostris) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA throughout their respective ranges, 

or, as an alternative, to list any 

identified distinct population segments 

(DPSs) as threatened or endangered. The 

petitioners also requested that critical 

habitat be designated concurrently with 

listing under the ESA. We found that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

for the giant manta ray and reef manta 

ray and announced the initiation of 

status reviews for these species, but 

found that the Caribbean manta ray is 

not a taxonomically valid species or 

subspecies for listing, and explained the 

basis for that finding (81 FR 8874, 

February 23, 2016). On January 12, 

2017, we published a proposed rule to 

list the giant manta ray as a threatened 

species under the ESA and made a 12- 

month determination that the reef manta 

ray did not warrant listing under the 

ESA (82 FR 3694). We solicited 

information on the proposed listing 

determination, the development of 

proposed protective regulations, and 

designation of critical habitat for the 

giant manta ray, and the comment 

period was open through March 13, 

2017. This final rule provides a 

discussion of the information we 

received during and after the public 

comment period and our final 

determination on the petition to list the 

giant manta ray under the ESA. 

Listing Species Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

We are responsible for determining 

whether species are threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). To make this 

determination, we first consider 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under section 3 

of the ESA, then whether the status of 

the species qualifies it for listing as 

either threatened or endangered. Section 

3 of the ESA defines species to include 

‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or 

plants, and any distinct population 

segment of any species of vertebrate fish 

or wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature.’’ On February 7, 1996, NMFS 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS; together, the Services) adopted 

a policy describing what constitutes a 

DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 

4722). The joint DPS policy identified 

two elements that must be considered 

when identifying a DPS: (1) The 

discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the 

species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species (or 

subspecies) to which it belongs. 

Section 3 of the ESA defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, 

in the context of the ESA, the Services 

interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to be 

one that is presently in danger of 

extinction. A ‘‘threatened species’’ is 

not presently in danger of extinction, 

but is likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future (that is, at a later 

time). In other words, the primary 

statutory difference between a 

threatened and endangered species is 

the timing of when a species is or is 

likely to become in danger of extinction, 

either presently (endangered) or in the 

foreseeable future (threatened). 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2917 

When we consider whether a species 

might qualify as threatened under the 

ESA, we must consider the meaning of 

the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ It is 

appropriate to interpret ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ as the horizon over which 

predictions about the conservation 

status of the species can be reasonably 

relied upon. The foreseeable future 

considers the life history of the species, 

habitat characteristics, availability of 

data, particular threats, ability to predict 

threats, and the ability to reliably 

forecast the effects of these threats and 

future events on the status of the species 

under consideration. Because a species 

may be susceptible to a variety of threats 

for which different data are available, or 

which operate across different time 

scales, the foreseeable future is not 

necessarily reducible to a particular 

number of years. 

Additionally, as the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species’’ makes clear, the determination 

of status can be based on either 

assessment of the rangewide status of 

the species, or the status of the species 

in a ‘‘significant portion of its range.’’ A 

species may be endangered or 

threatened throughout all of its range or 

a species may be endangered or 

threatened throughout only a significant 

portion of its range. The Services 

published a final policy to clarify the 

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ (SPR) in the ESA 

definitions of ‘‘threatened species’’ and 

‘‘endangered species’’ (referred to as the 

‘‘SPR Policy,’’ 79 FR 37577; July 1, 

2014). The policy expressly recognizes 

that the SPR phrase provides an 

independent basis for listing and sets 

out the following principles: 

(1) If a species is found to be 

endangered or threatened throughout 

only an SPR, the entire species is listed 

as endangered or threatened, 

respectively, and the ESA’s protections 

apply to all individuals of the species 

wherever found. 

(2) A portion of the range of a species 

is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not 

currently endangered or threatened 

throughout its range, but the portion’s 

contribution to the viability of the 

species is so important that without the 

members in that portion (i.e., if the 

members were hypothetically lost), the 

species would be in danger of 

extinction, or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future, throughout all of its 

range. 

(3) The range of a species is 

considered to be the general 

geographical area within which that 

species can be found at the time USFWS 

or NMFS makes any particular status 

determination. This range includes 

those areas used throughout all or part 

of the species’ life cycle, even if they are 

not used regularly (e.g., seasonal 

habitats). Lost historical range is 

relevant to the analysis of the status of 

the species, but it cannot constitute an 

SPR. 

(4) If a species is endangered or 

threatened throughout an SPR, and the 

population in that significant portion is 

a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather 

than the entire taxonomic species or 

subspecies. 

The statute also requires us to 

determine whether any species is 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range as a 

result of any one or a combination of the 

following five factors: The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address identified 

threats; or other natural or manmade 

factors affecting its continued existence 

(ESA section 4(a)(1)(A)–(E)). 

To make a listing determination, we 

first determine whether a petitioned 

species meets the ESA definition of a 

‘‘species.’’ Next, using the best available 

information gathered during the status 

review for the species, we assess the 

extinction risk of the species. In 

assessing the extinction risk of the giant 

manta ray, in conjunction with the 

section 4(a)(1) factors, we considered 

demographic risk factors, such as those 

developed by McElhany et al. (2000), to 

organize and evaluate the forms of risks. 

The demographic risk analysis is an 

assessment of the manifestation of past 

threats that have contributed to the 

species’ current status and also informs 

the consideration of the biological 

response of the species to present and 

future threats. The approach of 

considering demographic risk factors to 

help frame the consideration of 

extinction risk has been used in many 

of our previous status reviews (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species 

for links to these reviews). In this 

approach, the collective condition of 

individual populations is considered at 

the species level according to four 

demographic viability factors: 

abundance and trends, population 

growth rate or productivity, spatial 

structure and connectivity, and genetic 

diversity. These viability factors reflect 

concepts that are well-founded in 

conservation biology and that 

individually and collectively provide 

strong indicators of extinction risk. 

Scientific conclusions about the 

overall risk of extinction faced by the 

giant manta ray under present 

conditions and in the foreseeable future 

are based on our evaluation of the 

species’ demographic risks and ESA 

section 4(a)(1) threat factors. Our 

assessment of overall extinction risk 

considered the likelihood and 

contribution of each particular factor, 

synergies among contributing factors, 

and the cumulative impact of all 

demographic risks and threats on the 

giant manta ray. 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires 

us to make listing determinations based 

solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

efforts being made by any State or 

foreign nation or political subdivision 

thereof to protect the species. Therefore, 

prior to making a listing determination, 

we also assess such protective efforts to 

determine if they are adequate to 

mitigate the existing threats. In 

evaluating the efficacy of existing 

domestic protective efforts, we rely on 

the Services’ joint Policy on Evaluation 

of Conservation Efforts When Making 

Listing Decisions (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; 

March 28, 2003) for any conservation 

efforts that have not been implemented, 

or have been implemented but not yet 

demonstrated effectiveness. 

Summary of Comments 

In response to our request for public 

comments on the proposed rule, we 

received information and/or comments 

from 25 parties. The large majority of 

commenters supported the proposed 

listing determination but provided no 

new or substantive data or information 

relevant to the listing of the giant manta 

ray. We also directly solicited comments 

from the foreign ambassadors of 

countries where the giant manta ray 

occurs and received a response from the 

Aquatic Resources Authority and the 

Ministry of the Environment of Panama 

and the Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Regulatory Department of Guatemala, 

both in support of the proposed listing 

determination. Summaries of the 

substantive public comments received 

and our responses are provided below 

and organized by topic. 

Comments on ESA Section 4(a)(1) 

Factors 

Comment 1: One commenter stated 

that the giant manta ray is widely 

distributed over vast tropical oceans 

and, therefore, is not a vulnerable 

species tied to specific restricted 

habitats. The commenter further noted 

that according to their own literature 

search, manta rays do not appear to 

have any predators, and the commenter 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2918 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

did not know of any reports of manta 

rays being eaten by sharks. The 

commenter concluded that because the 

manta ray has only one pup per birth, 

this indicates very low predation on the 

young. Finally, the commenter stated 

that there are no existing or historical 

commercial or sport fisheries for manta 

rays in U.S. waters and, thus, the stock 

has not been affected by any fisheries. 

Response: We note that the 

commenter did not provide any 

references that were not already 

considered and included in the status 

review report and proposed rule. While 

we agree that the giant manta ray is a 

wide-ranging species, we pointed out in 

the proposed rule that habitat 

preference for the species varies by 

region. And while the species may show 

low habitat specificity, we noted that 

manta rays frequently rely on offshore 

reefs for important life history functions 

(e.g., feeding, cleaning). 

We disagree that manta rays do not 

have any predators. As noted in the 

proposed rule, manta rays are frequently 

observed with shark-inflicted bites, and 

killer whales have been recorded 

preying on manta rays. We also note 

that the number of young does not 

provide an indication of predation rates 

on young. While the predation rate on 

young manta rays is unknown, the 

status review reports that after birth, 

young mantas need a period of minutes 

before they can swim properly, meaning 

they would be at risk of predation 

during this time. Additionally, because 

mantas do not provide any parental care 

to their offspring, the survival rate of the 

young may depend on the mother’s 

choice of birth site. However, at this 

time, manta ray pupping and nursery 

grounds are unknown. Therefore, we are 

aware of no information to support the 

commenter’s conclusion that there is 

very low predation on manta ray young. 

Finally, while we do not dispute that 

there are no known existing or historical 

commercial or sport fisheries for manta 

rays in U.S. waters, this does not mean 

that U.S. fisheries are not contributing 

to the mortality rates of giant manta 

rays. As stated in the status review and 

proposed rule, giant manta rays are 

sometimes caught as bycatch in the U.S. 

bottom longline and gillnet fisheries 

operating in the western Atlantic. 

Additionally, manta rays have been 

identified in U.S. bycatch data from 

fisheries operating primarily in the 

Central and Western Pacific Ocean, 

including the U.S. tuna purse seine 

fisheries, the Hawaii-based deep-set and 

shallow-set longline fisheries for tuna, 

and the American Samoa pelagic 

longline fisheries. However, given the 

low estimates of M. birostris bycatch in 

U.S. fisheries, we concluded that 

impacts from this mortality on the 

species are likely to be minimal. 

Comments on Available Data, Trends, 

and Analysis 

Comment 2: One commenter stated 

the available information on abundance 

declines was insufficient to imply a 

rangewide decline. The commenter 

noted that many of the declines 

described in the status review were in 

highly populous areas or where targeted 

fishing for mobulids occurs, and that 

both the status review and proposed 

rule state that giant manta rays may be 

stable where they are not subject to 

fishing. Additionally, the commenter 

states that the documented declines are 

not based on systematic abundance 

surveys and rely heavily on anecdotal 

information. 

Response: We proposed to list the 

giant manta ray based on its status in a 

significant portion of its range (SPR). 

Our proposal is not based on our 

assessment of the status throughout the 

range. We agree that the available 

information on abundance trends is 

lacking throughout the species range, 

but within the relevant SPR, the best 

available data indicate that the species 

has suffered population declines of 

significant magnitude (up to 95 percent 

in some places). We note that these 

declines are largely based on trends in 

landings and market data, diver 

sightings, and anecdotal observations. 

While we would also like to have 

systematic abundance survey data, this 

type of data is not currently available, 

nor did the commenter provide any 

such data. Under the ESA, we are 

required to use the best available data to 

make our listing determinations, and we 

have determined that the best available 

data, along with the evidence of threats 

to the species (i.e., overutilization and 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms), indicate that the species 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. 

Comment 3: One commenter 

suggested that the longline catch-perunit-effort (CPUE) data from the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(WCPO) should be viewed 

circumspectly, and that further analysis 

is warranted to discern the cause of the 

reduction in M. birostris catch as 

presented in Tremblay-Boyer and 

Brouwer (2016). Additionally, the 

commenter argues that the WCPO purse 

seine catch data (Tremblay-Boyer and 

Brouwer 2016) does not indicate a 

decline, and that the bycatch data for 

the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Hall and 

Roman 2013) are variable or do not 

exhibit a strong trend. As such, the 

commenter asserts that the available 

evidence suggests only localized 

depletion and does not support a 

threatened status for M. birostris 

throughout the Indo-Pacific and Eastern 

Pacific (i.e., the relevant significant 

portion of its range). 

Response: In the status review and 

proposed rule, we noted that the 

available WCPO CPUE longline data 

presented in Tremblay-Boyer and 

Brouwer (2016), while short, indicates 

that the giant manta ray is observed less 

frequently in recent years compared to 

2000–2005. Based on the distribution of 

longline effort from 2000–2015 in the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission longline fisheries, effort 

has been concentrated around Indonesia 

and the Philippines (Williams and 

Terawasi 2016), where significant 

declines in the species have been 

observed. Additionally, Williams and 

Terawasi (2016) note that there has been 

a growth in the domestic fleets 

operating in the South Pacific over the 

past decade, with effort clearly 

increasing between 2004 and 2015. 

Therefore, we think it is reasonable to 

assume that the noted declines in 

observations of the giant manta ray in 

the WCPO may be a result of fisheryrelated mortality and an associated 

decrease in the abundance of the species 

in the region. While the commenter 

suggested that the decline may be due 

to some aspect of the fishery that has 

made M. birostris less catchable, they 

did not provide, nor are we aware of any 

information that supports that 

assumption. 

In terms of the WCPO purse seine 

data (presented in Tremblay-Boyer and 

Brouwer (2016)), we noted in the status 

review that these data show strong 

reporting bias trends (as observer 

reporting in the purse seine fisheries to 

species-level became more prevalent 

after 2008), and, therefore, should not be 

used to assess abundance trends. The 

bycatch data for the Eastern Pacific 

Ocean (Hall and Roman 2013), 

mentioned by the commenter, is also 

discussed in the status review. While 

the current data do not exhibit a strong 

trend, overall, they do show a 

substantial increase in the catch and 

bycatch (defined as individuals retained 

for utilization and individuals discarded 

dead, respectively) of manta rays in 

purse seines in the Eastern Pacific 

Ocean since 2005. For example, prior to 

2005, catch and bycatch remained 

below 20 t per year (data from 1998– 

2004), but by 2005, it was around 30 t 

and jumped to around 150 t in 2006 

(Hall and Roman 2013). In 2008, catch 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2919 

and bycatch had dropped to 40 t and, 

in 2009, decreased further to less than 

10 t (Hall and Roman 2013). In 2015, 

catches of manta and mobula rays by 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) large purse seine 

vessels with observers on board in the 

Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) was 71 t 

(IATTC 2016). As mentioned in the 

status review, the estimated average 

annual capture for giant manta rays by 

IATTC purse seine vessels operating in 

the EPO was 135 individuals (based on 

data from 1993–2015). We have also 

become aware of a recent preliminary 

productivity and susceptibly analysis 

(PSA) that was not included in the draft 

status review (Miller and Klimovich 

2016). This preliminary PSA suggests 

that giant manta rays are one of the most 

vulnerable species to overfishing in the 

EPO purse-seine fisheries (Duffy and 

Griffiths 2017). Specifically, the PSA 

compared 32 species and calculated 

vulnerability scores as a combination of 

the species’ productivity and 

susceptibility to the fishery (Duffy and 

Griffiths 2017). In all three of the 

models run, giant manta rays were 

always one of the top five most 

vulnerable species to the EPO purse 

seine fisheries (Duffy and Griffiths 

2017). Because effort in this fishery 

coincides with high productivity areas 

where giant manta rays are likely to 

aggregate, and have been observed 

caught in sets, we find that this 

continued fishing pressure in the EPO 

purse-seine fisheries is likely to lead to 

substantial declines in M. birostris 

throughout this portion of its range and 

potential extirpations within the 

foreseeable future, with evidence of 

significant declines already observed off 

Cocos Island, Costa Rica (a protected 

area for manta rays). 

Given the migratory nature of the 

species, as well as the significant fishing 

pressure and threats of overutilization 

and inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address those threats, 

further supported by available data 

indicating the vulnerability of the 

species to overfishing and declines in 

giant manta ray populations throughout 

this portion of its range, we disagree 

with the commenter and find that the 

available evidence indicates that M. 

birostris is likely to be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future 

throughout the Indo-Pacific and Eastern 

Pacific portion of its range. 

Comment 4: One commenter provided 

manta/mobula ray CPUE data from the 

Hawaii deep-set and shallow-set 

longline fisheries and the American 

Samoa longline fishery based on 

unpublished NMFS observer data. 

Response: We have updated the final 

status review report with this 

information. The CPUE data further 

support our findings that catch of manta 

rays is low in these fisheries. 

Specifically, the observer data indicate 

that the CPUE (individuals per 1,000 

hooks) has ranged between <0.001 and 

0.003 in the Hawaii deep-set longline 

fishery since 2002, with approximately 

20 percent observer coverage. In the 

Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery, 

CPUE has ranged between 0 and 0.005 

since 2004, with 100 percent observer 

coverage. In the American Samoa 

longline fishery, CPUE has ranged 

between <0.001 and 0.003 since 2007, 

with approximately 20 percent observer 

coverage. While we find that this new 

data supports our conclusion that 

impacts from these U.S. fisheries on the 

status of giant manta rays are likely 

minimal, we do not find that it changes 

our analysis or conclusions regarding 

the extinction risk of the giant manta ray 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range due to overutilization in non-U.S. 

fisheries. 

Comment 5: One commenter 

requested that the final rule expressly 

state that the Hawaii-based longline 

fisheries have only very rare 

interactions with manta rays, and 

negligible, discountable, and 

insignificant indirect effects on M. 

birostris. The commenter provides 

Hawaii-based and American Samoa 

longline bycatch data from 2011 to 2013 

to support this argument. 

Response: We have updated the final 

status review report with the provided 

bycatch data from 2011 and 2012. The 

status review already presented the 

bycatch information from 2013. It is not 

necessary to present detailed 

information in this rule about specific 

fisheries that do not appear to be 

significantly affecting the status of M. 

birostris, because this rule is focused on 

explaining the basis for our conclusion 

regarding the listing status of the 

species. Available details on particular 

fisheries and their associated impacts 

can be found in the final status review 

of the species (Miller and Klimovich 

2017). As mentioned in our response to 

Comment 4, based on available U.S. 

bycatch data from fisheries operating 

primarily in the Central and Western 

Pacific Ocean, including the Hawaiibased deep-set longline fisheries, the 

status review concludes that impacts on 

the giant manta ray are likely to be 

minimal. The additional data further 

support this finding. 

Comment 6: One commenter provided 

personal observations from aerial 

surveys of manta rays off of St. 

Augustine, Florida. The commenter 

noted that the surveys were done from 

2009–2012, and that they personally 

observed vast schools of mantas, with it 

not unusual to observe over 500 manta 

rays per 6–8 hour day of aerial survey. 

The commenter noted that unpublished 

results from aerial surveys also 

document significant numbers of manta 

rays from 2011–2013, and that 

additional aerial surveys are underway 

at this time. 

Response: We thank the commenter 

for this general information and have 

included it in the final status review 

(Miller and Klimovich 2017) as a 

personal communication from the 

commenter. However, without more 

specific information regarding these 

aerial surveys and the associated data 

(including survey methods and manta 

ray identification protocols, specific 

counts of individuals, composition of 

schools (i.e., males, females, juveniles, 

adults), seasonal and geographical 

information), we find that information is 

still severely lacking on population 

sizes, distribution, and trends in 

abundance of M. birostris within this 

portion of its range. As such, this 

general information does not change our 

conclusion from the proposed rule 

regarding the demographic risks to the 

species or the overall extinction risk of 

the species throughout its range and 

within the Indo-Pacific and eastern 

Pacific SPR. 

Comment 7: The Aquatic Resources 

Authority of Panama and the Ministry of 

the Environment of Panama submitted a 

comment supporting our proposal to list 

the giant manta ray as threatened. In 

terms of Panamanian data, they noted 

that landings are reported by general 

category and not by species, and, 

therefore, no information is available on 

the landing or occurrence of Manta 

species in the Panamanian fisheries. 

However, in general, rays appear to be 

a sporadic resource and possibly 

associated with net fishing, but this 

cannot be verified based on the 

available data. 

While the data on the species is 

lacking in Panamanian waters, the 

Panama Environment Ministry and the 

Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama 

noted that the available information 

indicates that the species should be 

protected and pointed to the IATTC 

resolution (C–15–04) that prohibits the 

retention, transshipment, storage, 

landing, and sale of all devil and manta 

rays taken in its large-scale fisheries. 

Response: We thank the Aquatic 

Resources Authority of Panama and the 

Ministry of the Environment of Panama 

for their comment in support of our 

conclusion that the species warrants 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2920 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

listing as a threatened species under the 

ESA. 

Comment 8: One commenter provided 

new information regarding the trophic 

level position of the giant manta ray and 

potential geographical differences in 

body sizes of the species. The 

commenter noted that the new 

information, which indicates that the 

diet of giant manta rays off Ecuador is 

predominantly of mesopelagic origin (as 

opposed to surface zooplankton) and 

that body size may vary by region due 

to prey availability or fishing pressure, 

should be taken into consideration 

during the development of critical 

habitat, recovery plans, and potential 

fishery regulations for giant manta rays. 

Response: We reviewed the new 

information regarding the trophic level 

position (Burgess et al. 2016) and 

potential body-size differences (McClain 

et al. 2015); however, we do not find 

that this new information changes any 

of our conclusions regarding the threats 

to the giant manta ray or the extinction 

risk analysis of the species. In the 

development of critical habitat, recovery 

plans, or any other regulations for the 

conservation of the giant manta ray, we 

will consider this along with all other 

available information. 

Comments on Foreseeable Future 

Comment 9: One commenter stated 

that NMFS neglected to define the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ and that without a 

temporal unit of measure to evaluate the 

species’ future status, NMFS cannot 

rationally make conclusions about the 

future status. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that we did not define the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ as a temporal unit 

of measure. In fact, in the status review 

and proposed rule, we defined the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ as extending out 

several decades (>50 years). We note 

that because the giant manta ray is 

susceptible to a variety of threats for 

which different data are available, and 

which operate across different time 

scales, the foreseeable future is not 

reducible to a particular number of 

years, nor does the ESA require that we 

identify a specific year or period of time 

as the foreseeable future. We also noted 

in the status review that the appropriate 

time horizon for ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is 

not limited to the period that status can 

be quantitatively modeled or predicted 

within predetermined limits of 

statistical confidence. Because neither 

the ESA nor implementing regulations 

define ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ the term is 

ambiguous, and Congress has left broad 

discretion to the Secretary to determine 

what period of time is reasonable for 

each species. See ‘‘Memorandum 

Opinion: The Meaning of ‘Foreseeable 

Future’ in Section 3(20) of the 

Endangered Species Act’’ (M–37021, 

Department of the Interior Office of the 

Solicitor, January 16, 2009). The 

appropriate timescales for analyzing 

various threats will vary with the data 

available about each threat. The 

foreseeable future considers factors such 

as the life history of the species 

(including generational length), habitat 

characteristics, availability of data, 

particular threats, ability to predict 

threats, and the ability to reliably 

forecast the effects of these threats and 

future events on the status of the species 

under consideration. In making our final 

listing determinations we must 

synthesize all available information and 

forecast the species’ status into the 

future only as far as we reliably are able 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information and best 

professional judgment. 

As discussed in the status review and 

proposed rule, we considered the giant 

manta ray’s life history traits, noting 

that it would likely take more than a few 

decades for management actions to be 

realized and reflected in population 

abundance indices, and the impact of 

present threats to the species. We found 

that the time frame extending out 

several decades (>50 years) would allow 

for reasonable predictions regarding the 

impact of current levels of fisheryrelated mortality on the biological status 

of the giant manta ray as well as impacts 

on giant manta ray habitat from climate 

change and the potential effects on the 

status of the species. 

Comments on Significant Portion of Its 

Range Analysis 

Comment 10: One commenter stated 

that we inconsistently evaluated the 

threat of fisheries to the Atlantic portion 

of the giant manta ray population. The 

commenter notes that we concluded in 

the proposed rule that overutilization is 

unlikely to be a threat to M. birostris in 

the Atlantic Ocean; however, in the SPR 

analysis, we found that the impact of 

targeted catch and bycatch in the 

Atlantic Ocean would be a significant 

contributing factor to the extinction risk 

of the species without the members in 

the SPR. The commenter asserts that if 

we do not consider targeted catch and 

bycatch to be a threat to the species in 

the Atlantic Ocean, and if extirpation of 

giant manta rays in the Indo-Pacific and 

eastern Pacific would not result in a 

shift in effort to the Atlantic Ocean, then 

it is unlikely that extirpation of the SPR 

would result in increased impacts from 

fisheries in the remaining portions of 

the species’ range. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that we inconsistently 

evaluated the threat of fisheries in the 

Atlantic portion of the giant manta ray’s 

range and that, by extension, our 

conclusion regarding the identified SPR 

is not supported. Our determination that 

the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific 

portion is biologically ‘‘significant’’ 

rests on the contributions the members 

in that portion make to the overall 

viability of the species. It does not 

depend on any assumptions or 

projections as to shifts in threats that 

would occur if the members in the 

portion were hypothetically lost, but 

rather to the reduction in the species’ 

ability to withstand continuing threats 

(e.g., fishing) without those members. 

When we conducted the SPR analysis, 

we noted the absence of known areas 

exhibiting source-sink dynamics, which 

could affect the survival of the species, 

but that the largest subpopulations and 

records of individuals of the species 

come from the Indo-Pacific and eastern 

Pacific portion. In the Atlantic, the only 

available data on populations were 

records of over 70 individuals from the 

Flower Garden Banks Marine Sanctuary 

(Gulf of Mexico) and 60 manta rays from 

waters off Brazil. As mentioned 

previously, these observations, coupled 

with the low presence of the species in 

Atlantic fisheries data, led us to 

conclude that Atlantic M. birostris 

populations are likely small and 

sparsely distributed. New information 

submitted during the public comment 

period also provided numbers from off 

the east coast of Florida (>90 

individuals); however, these data do not 

change our previous conclusion. If the 

species was hypothetically extirpated 

within the Indo-Pacific and eastern 

Pacific portion of the range, only the 

potentially small and fragmented 

Atlantic populations would remain. The 

demographic risks associated with small 

and fragmented populations discussed 

in the proposed rule, such as 

demographic stochasticity, depensation, 

and inability to adapt to environmental 

changes, would become significantly 

greater threats to the species as a whole, 

and coupled with the species’ inherent 

vulnerability to depletion, indicate that 

even low levels of mortality would 

portend drastic declines in the 

population. Because of these risks, we 

concluded that without the animals in 

the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific, 

even minimal targeted fishing of the 

species by artisanal fishermen and 

bycatch mortality from the purse seine, 

trawl, and longline fisheries currently 

operating in the Atlantic would become 

significant contributing factors to the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2921 

extinction risk of the species, placing 

the species in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

its range. We found that the Indo-Pacific 

and eastern Pacific portion of the giant 

manta ray’s range qualifies as 

‘‘significant’’ under the SPR Policy 

because this portion’s contribution to 

the viability of M. birostris is so 

important that, without the members in 

this portion, the giant manta ray would 

be likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future, 

throughout all of its range. 

Comment 11: One commenter 

suggested that we should analyze 

whether there are more geographicallydefined or regional populations of giant 

manta rays that could compose an SPR 

and analyze the status of those 

populations. The commenter asserts that 

there is no support to conclude that the 

entire Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific 

portion of the giant manta range is an 

SPR and theorizes perhaps smaller 

portions could be SPRs that may be 

endangered instead of threatened. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that there are theoretically infinite ways 

to divide a species’ range into potential 

SPRs. However, the SPR Policy does not 

require exhaustively analyzing all 

potential configurations, but rather sets 

out a rule of reason—that the Services 

will evaluate an area as a potential SPR 

only where there is substantial 

information indicating both that a 

particular portion may be biologically 

‘‘significant’’ and that the species may 

be either endangered or threatened in 

that portion. We must base our decision 

to focus on a particular portion on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information. The commenter does not 

provide information to support 

analyzing any particular portions that 

are likely to meet the two tests of the 

SPR Policy. Nor do we have additional 

information to support the identification 

of alternate, smaller SPRs. The 

commenter cited a study (McClain et al. 

2015) that found some geographic 

variability in disc width sizes among 

giant manta ray individuals that may be 

associated with fishing pressure or 

differences in food availability; 

however, the study cautions that these 

differences may be a result of ‘‘uneven 

sampling across different regions or 

differences in methodologies.’’ 

Additionally, the authors stated that the 

size distribution was not ‘‘significantly 

different from normal’’ when the data 

were combined for all the regions. Other 

than this paper, the commenter makes 

only general suppositions regarding the 

potential presence of smaller portions 

that they believe may be significant 

under the SPR Policy, and cites to the 

status review and proposed rule 

statements regarding declining 

subpopulations in the Indo-Pacific and 

eastern Pacific as support. 

During our analysis of the best 

available information, we found that 

threats were concentrated in the IndoPacific and eastern Pacific portion of the 

species’ range, based on data from the 

smaller regional populations, and 

concluded that this portion meets the 

definition of an SPR under the SPR 

Policy. We note that the SPR Policy 

does not specify how portions are to be 

geographically identified or require 

exhaustive analyses to determine all 

possible geographic combinations of 

members or areas that may comprise an 

SPR. However, in our demographic and 

SPR analysis, we found no information 

to demonstrate that M. birostris is 

composed of source-sink populations in 

any specific portion of its range, which 

could affect the survival of the species 

and may meet the specific standard of 

the SPR Policy to qualify it as 

biologically significant. Additionally, 

although we found data to suggest 

specific populations throughout the 

Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific are in 

decline, there was no information to 

suggest that the loss of any one of these 

populations would place the species in 

danger of extinction, or render it likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future, 

throughout all of its range. The 

commenter did not provide any new 

information that suggests this would be 

the case. However, we did find that loss 

of all of the populations in the IndoPacific and eastern Pacific portion of the 

species’ range would place the species 

in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. We state that the largest 

subpopulations and records of 

individuals of the species come from 

this portion and, without it, the species 

would have to rely only on its members 

in the potentially small and fragmented 

Atlantic populations for survival (see 

response to Comment 10 for further 

details). We therefore disagree with the 

commenter and find no rationale for 

conducting additional SPR analysis. 

Comment 12: One commenter 

contended that the proposed rule failed 

to provide the required analysis and 

information to satisfy the legal 

requirements of the ESA in the context 

of the SPR analysis. The commenter 

asserted that there are two underlying 

errors: (1) NMFS failed to conduct a 

‘‘detailed analysis’’ to support its 

conclusion that the Indo-Pacific and 

eastern Pacific portion of the giant 

manta ray’s range is significant under 

the SPR Policy; and (2) NMFS failed to 

engage in a ‘‘separately’’ and similarly 

‘‘detailed analysis’’ to determine 

whether the giant manta ray is 

endangered or threatened in the portion 

of its range found to be significant. 

Response: In regards to the first claim, 

we disagree with the commenter that we 

failed to conduct a ‘‘detailed analysis’’ 

with respect to our determination that 

the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific 

portion of the giant manta ray’s range is 

‘‘significant’’ under the SPR Policy. As 

required by the SPR Policy, we 

examined whether the members of the 

species within the identified portion of 

the giant manta ray’s range are so 

important to the viability of the species 

that, without them, the species would 

be in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. In 

conducting this analysis, we considered 

what the composition of the species 

would be if, hypothetically, members of 

the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific 

portion were extirpated (lost). We noted 

that the species would have to rely on 

only its members in the Atlantic for 

survival. As previously discussed in the 

proposed rule within the Demographic 

Risk Analysis section (82 FR 3708; 

January 12, 2017) and summarized in 

our response to Comment 10, the best 

available data suggest that the 

populations within the Atlantic are 

small and sparsely distributed, so the 

demographic risks of the species would 

increase to the point that the species 

would likely become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout its 

range. The demographic risk analysis, 

which examined abundance, spatial 

distribution, productivity, and diversity 

of giant manta rays, specifically 

discussed the risks associated with 

small and fragmented populations. We 

did not find it necessary to repeat this 

same information within the SPR 

analysis section but rather referred back 

to the previous, detailed discussion of 

demographic risks for small and 

sparsely distributed populations. While 

the commenter argues that this 

discussion falls short of the analytical 

standards set forth in the SPR Policy, 

specifically citing that the analysis must 

consider the contribution of the portion 

to the viability of the species using 

concepts of redundancy, resiliency and 

representation, we note that the SPR 

Policy also states that these concepts 

can be considered in terms of 

abundance, spatial distribution, 

productivity, and diversity of the 

species, as was done in this analysis. 

See 79 FR at 37581. Additionally, while 

the commenter suggests our discussion 

is conclusory and speculative, the 

commenter provides no additional data 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2922 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

for us to consider. As such, we reiterate 

that we used the best available 

information, as required by the ESA, to 

conduct our SPR analysis, we fully 

analyzed all of that information, and we 

provided a detailed explanation of our 

analysis to support our conclusions. 

With respect to the second claim, we 

disagree with the commenter that we 

failed to conduct a separate, detailed 

analysis of whether the giant manta ray 

is endangered or threatened in the 

portion of its range that we found to be 

‘‘significant.’’ In conducting our 

extinction risk analysis, which 

considered all of the information from 

the detailed demographic risk analysis 

and threats assessment, we concluded 

that giant manta ray populations within 

the Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific 

portion of its range (i.e., the SPR) are at 

a ‘‘moderate risk of extinction,’’ and we 

explained the basis for that conclusion 

in the proposed rule. We defined 

‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ within the 

status review (and cited to this 

definition within the proposed rule) as 

a species that ‘‘. . . is on a trajectory 

that puts it at a high level of extinction 

risk in the foreseeable future.’’ A ‘‘high 

level of extinction risk’’ was defined to 

mean that a species ‘‘is at or near a level 

of abundance, productivity, spatial 

structure, and/or diversity that places its 

continued persistence in question . . . 

[or] faces clear and present threats (e.g., 

confinement to a small geographic area; 

imminent destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat; or disease 

epidemic) that are likely to create 

imminent and substantial demographic 

risks.’’ In our overall determination, we 

found that a ‘‘moderate risk of 

extinction’’ equates to a threatened 

status, as the species is on a trajectory 

toward a status where its continued 

persistence is in question (where it is in 

danger of extinction) in the foreseeable 

future. To the extent there was any 

ambiguity in the analysis set forth in the 

proposed rule, we clarify here that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

within the Indo-Pacific and eastern 

Pacific portion, which correlates to 

‘‘threatened’’ status. However, we 

cannot end our analysis there. The ESA 

also directs us to take into account 

conservation efforts after conducting a 

review of the status of the species and 

before making our determination. 

Therefore, we conducted the SPR 

analysis to evaluate the risk of 

extinction of the giant manta ray, but 

then proceeded to look at conservation 

efforts to determine whether the 

identified risk level is reduced as a 

result of such efforts before coming to 

our final determination. As we did not 

find that conservation efforts 

significantly altered the extinction risk 

for the giant manta ray to the point 

where it would not be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future, we 

made our final determination that the 

giant manta ray is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout a 

significant portion of its range and 

therefore proposed to list it throughout 

its range as a threatened species. 

Comment 13: Two commenters 

argued that the giant manta ray is in 

danger of extinction in the identified 

SPR and, therefore, should be listed as 

an endangered species. One commenter 

states that NMFS did not fully take into 

account the migratory nature of the 

giant manta ray and its large range when 

it proposed to list the species as 

threatened. The commenter cites to the 

declines of over 80 percent in certain 

commercial fishing hotspots in the SPR 

where giant manta rays feed and 

aggregate during migrations through the 

region, and argues that the impairment 

of these portions increases the 

vulnerability of the species to threats, 

placing the entire species in danger of 

extinction. The other commenter argues 

that the observed declines of 80–95 

percent in the SPR should be 

interpreted as the SPR being at a high 

risk of extinction. One commenter also 

states that our own conclusions in the 

proposed rule satisfied the SPR Policy 

threshold for ‘‘likely to go extinct 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range.’’ Finally, the same commenter 

states that if NMFS lists the species as 

threatened, it has circumvented the 

analysis of determining whether the 

species is in danger of extinction in any 

portion of its range, instead basing its 

conclusion on the worldwide decline of 

the species. 

Response: We disagree with both 

commenters. We also note that neither 

commenter provided any new 

information that was not already 

considered in the status review and 

proposed rule. As such, the 

commenters’ claims are based on their 

own interpretation of the data and the 

SPR Policy. Below, we discuss our 

rationale for listing the giant manta ray 

as threatened within an SPR and 

explain key aspects of the SPR Policy. 

First, we disagree with the statement 

that we did not consider the migratory 

nature of the giant manta ray or its large 

range when evaluating the species’ 

extinction risk. In fact, its global range 

and the lack of available information on 

the abundance, life history, and ecology 

of the species in the Atlantic portion of 

this range was the reason why the 

declines observed in the Indo-Pacific 

and eastern Pacific portion were found 

not to translate to overall declines in the 

species throughout its entire range. We 

also considered the migratory nature of 

the species when we examined threats 

to the species. For example, in our 

discussion of the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, we noted that 

current national protections for the 

species may not be adequate to protect 

it from overutilization, primarily 

because the species is pelagic and 

migratory and not confined to these 

protected areas. Additionally, when 

evaluating the overall risk of extinction 

of the species, we noted that although 

larger, and seemingly stable populations 

of the species still exist (including 

within areas of the Indo-Pacific and 

eastern Pacific), its migratory behavior 

means the species will continue to face 

fishing pressure throughout this portion 

through the foreseeable future. 

However, we disagree that declines of 

80–95 percent in local populations 

within the SPR establish that the species 

is at a high risk of extinction. As stated 

in the proposed rule, despite these 

declines, larger subpopulations of the 

species still exist within the SPR. In 

fact, the only two available 

subpopulation estimates of M. birostris 

(from Mozambique and Ecuador) 

suggest that these populations are not so 

critically small in size that they are 

likely to experience extreme 

fluctuations that could lead to 

depensation or otherwise put the 

populations in danger of extinction at 

this time. In addition, we note that 

elsewhere in the SPR, current and 

accurate abundance estimates are 

unavailable for the giant manta ray, as 

the species tends to be only sporadically 

observed. In terms of other demographic 

risks, we note that the available 

information does not indicate any 

changes in the reproductive traits of the 

species or the natural rates of dispersal 

among populations (particularly within 

the SPR), or any evidence that the 

species is presently strongly influenced 

by stochastic or depensatory processes 

within the SPR. As such, the best 

available information does not indicate 

that the species is presently in danger of 

extinction within the SPR. However, 

due to continued fishing pressure 

within the SPR and the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory measures to control 

this fishing pressure, we concluded that 

overutilization is a threat to the 

remaining M. birostris populations that 

places the species within the SPR on a 

trajectory to be in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2923 

Second, one of the commenters 

equates a statement in the proposed rule 

that extirpations of those populations 

that have experienced substantial 

declines and are still subject to fishing, 

particularly in the Indo-Pacific and 

eastern Pacific portions of the species’ 

range, would inherently increase the 

overall risk of extinction for the entire 

species (see 82 FR 3694; January 12, 

2017) to indicating that the species is 

‘‘likely to go extinct’’ throughout an 

SPR. The commenter further goes on to 

incorrectly interpret our statement to 

mean that the Indo-Pacific and eastern 

Pacific portions are increasing the 

vulnerability of the species to threats to 

the point where the entire species is in 

danger of extinction. The statement in 

the proposed rule referenced by the 

commenter was made in our analysis of 

the demographic risk that current 

abundance and trends in abundance 

pose to the species. To clarify, the 

statement in the proposed rule that the 

hypothetical loss of the animals in the 

SPR would cause an ‘‘inherent increase’’ 

in the overall risk of extinction for the 

species does not mean that the species 

is actually now at the level where it is 

considered to be in danger of extinction. 

Rather, it means that the species would 

be at a higher risk of extinction if, 

hypothetically, the members in the 

portion were no longer in existence and 

providing contributions to the species 

than the species is currently. In fact, as 

already discussed, we concluded the 

species would likely become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future without that portion. 

Third, one of the commenters 

presents an argument that the entire 

species is in danger of extinction due to 

the impairment of the species within the 

SPR, and that we should therefore 

conclude that the giant manta ray is in 

danger of extinction throughout the 

SPR. Specifically, the commenter states 

that the species has experienced 

declines in certain fishing hotspots or 

aggregation areas and that ‘‘[t]he 

impairment of these portions of the 

species’ range increases the 

vulnerability of the species to the 

threats it faces to the point that the 

entire species is in danger of 

extinction.’’ The commenter thus asserts 

that we should have concluded that the 

giant manta ray is endangered in an 

SPR, and that we inappropriately 

reached a threatened status conclusion 

simply because the species is not 

endangered in every part of its range. 

The commenter further states that if we 

list the species as threatened, it 

indicates that we only looked at the 

worldwide decline and did not consider 

whether the species is endangered in 

some portions of its range. Contrary to 

this assertion, we did consider whether 

the species was endangered or 

threatened in any significant portion of 

its range. As outlined previously, after 

evaluating the species’ extinction risk 

throughout its range (worldwide), we 

reached a conclusion that the species 

was not threatened or endangered range 

wide. Thus, we next conducted an SPR 

analysis. As stated in the proposed rule, 

and in the SPR Policy (79 FR 37577; 

July 1, 2014), in order to identify only 

those portions that warrant further 

consideration under the SPR Policy, we 

must determine whether there is 

substantial information indicating both 

that (1) a particular portion of the range 

may be ‘‘significant’’ and (2) the species 

may be in danger of extinction in that 

portion or likely to become so within 

the foreseeable future. The policy 

further explains that, depending on the 

particular facts of the situation, it may 

be more efficient to address the question 

of whether any identified portions are 

‘‘significant’’ first, but in other cases it 

will make more sense to examine the 

status of the species in the identified 

portions first. In the case of the giant 

manta ray, we first examined whether 

there were any portions of the range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction (endangered) or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

(threatened) and, finding that there 

were, we then evaluated whether those 

portions were ‘‘significant’’ under the 

SPR Policy. We concluded that the 

species is threatened in the Indo-Pacific 

and eastern Pacific portion of its range, 

and that this portion is ‘‘significant’’ 

under the SPR Policy. As previously 

explained, the best available 

information does not indicate that the 

species is presently in danger of 

extinction within the SPR; and 

therefore, we disagree with the 

commenter that the species should be 

listed as endangered. 

Lastly, the commenter makes 

assertions about the status of the species 

that are not supported in the record. 

Specifically, the commenter states: 

‘‘Under any reasonable reading of the 

ESA, the rapid decline of individuals in 

these areas and their likelihood of 

extinction in the foreseeable future 

would indicate that the species should 

be listed as endangered.’’ (Emphasis 

added.) The commenter’s assertions that 

the species is likely to become extinct 

within the foreseeable future is not 

supported in the record. We found that 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information indicates that 

the species is likely to become 

‘‘endangered’’ (in danger of extinction) 

‘‘within the foreseeable future’’ within 

the SPR. 16 U.S.C. 1532(20). Thus, the 

species meets the definition of 

‘‘threatened’’ within the SPR. We have 

not stated, and could not on the present 

record conclude, that the species is 

‘‘likely to become extinct within the 

foreseeable future’’—a much more grave 

prediction—either within the SPR or 

throughout its range. (Note that a 

finding that the portion is ‘‘significant,’’ 

while based on an assumed hypothetical 

loss of the members in the portion for 

the sake of analysis, is not actually a 

prediction of such loss.) Because we 

have found that the species is 

threatened in the SPR, per the SPR 

Policy, we are listing the species as 

threatened throughout its range. 

To summarize from the proposed rule, 

after examining and considering all of 

the available information on the species, 

including life history and abundance 

data as well as current and future 

threats to the species, we concluded that 

the species was not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so within 

the foreseeable future throughout its 

range. However, applying the SPR 

Policy, we determined that the IndoPacific and eastern Pacific portion of the 

species’ range qualified as an SPR. In 

evaluating the extinction risk of the 

species within this portion, we took into 

consideration the demographic risks of 

the species, the information on observed 

declines of the species in certain fishing 

areas, and the factors under section 

4(a)(1). However, we also noted that 

there is considerable uncertainty 

regarding the current abundance of M. 

birostris throughout this portion, with 

evidence that large subpopulations of 

the species still exist, such as off 

Mozambique and Ecuador. The 

proposed rule also mentioned that 

numbers of giant manta rays identified 

through citizen science in Thailand’s 

waters have been increasing over the 

past few years, and actually surpass the 

estimate of identified giant mantas in 

Mozambique, possibly indicating that 

Thailand may be home to the largest 

aggregation of giant manta rays within 

the Indian Ocean. Because neither 

commenter provided any new 

information to consider regarding 

abundance, population declines, or 

threats in this SPR, our conclusion that 

the species is likely to become in danger 

of extinction within the foreseeable 

future, and thus is threatened, within 

the SPR remains the same, and, per the 

SPR Policy, we are listing it is as 

threatened throughout its range under 

the ESA. 

Comment 14: One commenter states 

that the intention to list the giant manta 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2924 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

ray as threatened is unwarranted due to 

an almost complete lack of scientific 

evidence. The commenter notes that 

there is no conclusive threat in North 

American waters, and that the 

threatened conclusion is based on one 

article in the literature. The commenter 

further goes on to state that there are no 

fisheries for manta rays in North 

American waters or evidence of the 

species being overfished in U.S. waters, 

and notes that manta rays are protected 

from direct fishing pressure in Mexico, 

Brazil, and Florida and are listed on 

Appendix II of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES). 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that the listing of the giant 

manta ray as threatened is unwarranted. 

We also disagree that our conclusion 

was based on one article in the 

literature. As noted in the proposed 

rule, we considered the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

including the petition, public comments 

submitted on the 90-day finding (81 FR 

8874; February 23, 2016), the draft 

status review report (Miller and 

Klimovich 2016), and other published 

and unpublished information, and have 

consulted with species experts and 

individuals familiar with manta rays to 

come to our determination. Based on the 

available data, we concluded that the 

giant manta ray is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so 

throughout its entire range, but is 

threatened within an SPR. As 

thoroughly discussed in the proposed 

rule and status review, the giant manta 

ray faces concentrated threats within the 

SPR, with estimated take of the species 

frequently greater than the observed 

individuals in the area and evidence of 

declines in sightings and landings of the 

species of up to 95 percent in some 

places. Efforts to address overutilization 

of the species through regulatory 

measures are inadequate within the 

SPR, with targeted fishing of the species 

despite prohibitions and bycatch 

measures. Based on the demographic 

risks and threats to the species within 

the SPR, we determined that the species 

is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout the SPR. 

We do not posit that that there are 

fisheries for manta rays in North 

American waters, or that the species is 

being overfished in U.S. waters. As the 

final status review (Miller and 

Klimovich 2017) and proposed rule 

state, manta rays are observed as 

bycatch in the purse seine, trawl, and 

longline fisheries operating in the 

Atlantic Ocean. In our analysis of the 

species’ status throughout its entire 

range, we conclude that it is unlikely 

that overutilization as a result of 

bycatch mortality is a significant threat 

to the species in the Atlantic Ocean; 

however, we caveat this statement with 

the fact that information is severely 

lacking on population sizes and 

distribution of M. birostris in the 

Atlantic as well as current catch and 

fishing effort on the species throughout 

this portion of its range. However, as 

noted in our response to Comment 10, 

in conducting the SPR analysis, we 

found that even minimal targeted 

fishing of the species by artisanal 

fishermen and bycatch mortality from 

the purse seine, trawl, and longline 

fisheries operating in the Atlantic would 

become significant contributing factors 

to the extinction risk of the species if 

the species was extirpated within the 

SPR, which would place the species in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout its range. 

Comments on Similarity of Appearance 

Listing 

Comment 15: Two commenters stated 

that when NMFS finalizes its decision 

on the giant manta ray, it should also 

‘‘list’’ the reef manta ray under the 

similarity of appearance provision in 

the ESA. One of the commenters notes 

that both species are morphologically 

similar and that products from the giant 

and reef manta rays are practically 

impossible to distinguish in the 

international trade market (citing Wu 

2016). 

The other commenter notes the 

exponential demand for manta ray gill 

plates in the trade and argues that the 

gill plates in all nine species of manta 

rays look ‘‘almost identical.’’ The 

commenter further states that once a 

manta ray gill plate has been removed 

and dried, it is ‘‘almost impossible’’ to 

identify it to species. The commenter 

asserts that release of the ‘‘Field 

Identification Guide of the Prebranchial 

Appendages (Gill Plates) of Mobulid 

Rays for Law Enforcement and Trade 

Monitoring Applications’’ by the Manta 

Trust non-profit (Manta Trust 2011) was 

evidence of ‘‘how difficult it is for law 

enforcement to distinguish between 

each species gill plates’’ and that this is 

an ‘‘extremely difficult task.’’ The 

commenter further goes on to state that 

law enforcement will also be unable to 

use capture locations or depths to help 

determine the species of manta ray 

because they inhabit an overlapping 

range of habitat. The commenter 

contends that the difficulty in 

distinguishing between the reef and 

giant manta ray gill plates is an 

additional threat to the giant manta ray 

because fishermen will be able to 

continue to target the giant manta ray 

and pass off the gill plates as reef manta 

rays. Additionally, the commenter 

contends that listing the reef manta ray 

will ‘‘substantially facilitate the 

enforcement and further the policy’’ of 

the ESA because it will allow the giant 

manta ray population to increase and 

deter fishermen from catching them due 

to the higher likelihood that they will be 

caught by law enforcement. The 

commenter concludes that the reef 

manta ray must also be protected under 

the ESA to avoid misidentification of 

the manta ray gill plates and to 

discourage fishermen from disregarding 

the species of manta ray that they catch. 

Response: Section 4 of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1533(e)) provides that the 

Secretary may, by regulation of 

commerce or taking, and to the extent 

he deems advisable, treat any species as 

an endangered or threatened species 

even though it is not listed pursuant to 

Section 4 of the ESA when the following 

three conditions are satisfied: (1) Such 

species so closely resembles in 

appearance, at the point in question, a 

species which has been listed pursuant 

to Section 4 of the ESA that enforcement 

personnel would have substantial 

difficulty differentiating between the 

listed and unlisted species; (2) the effect 

of this substantial difficulty is an 

additional threat to an endangered or 

threatened species; and (3) such 

treatment of an unlisted species will 

substantially facilitate the enforcement 

and further the policy of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1533(e)(A)–(C)). 

In terms of the similarity of 

appearance of the gill plates assertion by 

the commenter, we first note that there 

are not nine species of manta rays, as 

stated by one of the commenters, but 

nine species of mobula rays. Manta rays 

are currently split into two species. We 

assume that the commenter was also 

referring to mobula rays in their 

statement that ‘‘all nine species of 

manta rays look almost identical.’’ 

Furthermore, the Manta Trust field 

identification guide cited by the 

commenter (Manta Trust 2011) 

explicitly states that ‘‘[g]ill plates from 

the two species of manta rays can be 

visually identified from the other 

species.’’ The guide explains that if the 

gill plate size is larger than 30 cm, is 

uniform brown or black in color, and 

has smooth filament edgings, then it 

belongs to a manta species (Manta Trust 

2011). The guide concludes that ‘‘Manta 

ray gill plates can easily be 

distinguished from the traded mobula 

ray species’ gill plates using this simple 

visual ID Guide. The size, colour 

patterning, and filament edging of the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2925 

gill plates can be used as an effective 

and easy indicator to determine the 

species of orgin [sic]’’ (Manta Trust 

2011). Based on this new information, 

we do not find that enforcement 

officials will have difficulty identifying 

manta ray gill plates from other mobula 

ray gill plates. 

In terms of identifying manta ray gill 

plates to species level, the information 

provided by the commenters did not 

discuss this issue, nor do we have 

information available in our files that 

would allow us to conclude that 

enforcement personnel would have 

substantial difficulty in attempting to 

differentiate between the two manta ray 

species. Additionally, even if these 

products from the two species closely 

resemble each other in appearance, we 

do not find that this resemblance poses 

an additional threat to the giant manta 

ray, nor do we find that treating the reef 

manta ray as an endangered or 

threatened species will substantially 

facilitate the enforcement of current 

ESA prohibitions or further the policy of 

the ESA, for the reasons explained 

below. 

As described in the proposed rule, the 

significant operative threats to the giant 

manta ray are overutilization by foreign 

commercial and artisanal fisheries in an 

SPR (i.e., the Indo-Pacific and Eastern 

Pacific) and inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms in foreign nations to 

protect these manta rays from the heavy 

fishing pressure and related mortality in 

these waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction. 

In fact, the take and trade of the species 

by persons under U.S. jurisdiction were 

not identified as significant threats to 

the giant manta ray. As such, we do not 

find that treating the reef manta ray as 

a threatened species would substantially 

further the conservation of the giant 

manta ray under the ESA. 

Regarding the potential take of giant 

manta rays by U.S. fishermen, which is 

primarily in the form of bycatch in U.S. 

fisheries, we do not find that the reef 

manta ray so closely resembles the giant 

manta ray in appearance such that 

enforcement personnel would not be 

able to differentiate between these two 

species when caught or landed. In fact, 

as noted in the status review, many 

physical characteristics, including 

coloration, dentition, denticles, spine 

morphology, and size, can be used to 

distinguish between the giant manta ray 

and the reef manta ray. For example, the 

chevron color variant of M. birostris can 

be distinguished from the chevron M. 

alfredi color type by its dark (black to 

charcoal grey) mouth coloration, 

medium to large black spots that occur 

below its fifth gill slits, and a grey Vshaped colored margin along the 

posterior edges of its pectoral fins 

(Marshall et al. 2009). In contrast, the 

chevron M. alfredi has a white to light 

grey mouth, dark spots that are typically 

located in the middle of the abdomen, 

in between the five gill slits, and dark 

colored bands on the posterior edges of 

the pectoral fins that only stretch midway down to the fin tip (Marshall et al. 

2009). Additionally, only M. birostris 

has a caudal thorn and prominent 

dermal denticles that gives their skin a 

much rougher appearance than that of 

M. alfredi (Marshall et al. 2009). Based 

on these distinguishing characteristics, 

we do not find that enforcement 

personnel would have substantial 

difficulty in attempting to differentiate 

between the giant and reef manta ray 

species in the bycatch of U.S. fisheries. 

Furthermore, we note that the reef 

manta ray does not occur in the Atlantic 

Ocean, so any manta rays caught by U.S. 

fisheries in this portion of the giant 

manta ray range would easily be 

identified as M. birostris. 

Regarding trade, the main threat to the 

giant manta ray is the international 

mobulid gill plate trade. As stated in the 

status review and proposed rule, since 

the 1990s, the gill plate market has 

significantly expanded, which has 

increased the demand for manta ray 

products, particularly in China. These 

gill plates are used in Asian medicine 

and are thought to have healing 

properties. However, as noted in the 

final status review (Miller and 

Klimovich 2017) and proposed rule, 

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India 

presently represent the largest manta ray 

exporting range state countries, with 

Chinese gill plate vendors also reporting 

mobulid gill plates from other regions as 

well, including Malaysia, China, 

Taiwan, Vietnam, South Africa, 

Thailand, Australia, Philippines, 

Mexico, South America (e.g., Brazil), the 

Middle East, and the South China Sea 

(CMS 2014; Hau et al. 2016; O’Malley et 

al. 2017). We found no information to 

indicate that the United States has a 

significant, or even any, presence in the 

international mobulid gill plate trade. 

Additionally, and as explained in the 

Protective Regulations Under Section 

4(d) of the ESA section below, because 

we find that the United States is not a 

significant contributor to the threats 

facing the giant manta ray, we have 

determined that protective regulations 

pursuant to section 4(d) are not 

currently necessary and advisable for 

the conservation of the species. 

Therefore, even if there may be some 

degree of difficulty in differentiating 

reef manta rays and giant manta rays, or 

their gill plates, we do not find that U.S. 

enforcement personnel will be faced 

with this task to the extent that 

necessitates treating the reef manta ray 

as a listed species to further the 

conservation of the giant manta ray 

under the ESA. Ultimately, given the 

threats to the species as discussed in the 

final status review (Miller and 

Klimovich 2017) and proposed rule, any 

conservation actions for giant manta ray 

that would bring it to the point that the 

measures of the ESA are no longer 

necessary will need to be implemented 

by foreign nations. 

For the reasons above, we do not find 

it advisable to further regulate the 

commerce or taking of the reef manta 

ray by treating it as a threatened species 

based on similarity of appearance to the 

giant manta ray. 

Comments on Establishing Protective 

Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the 

ESA 

Comment 16: Two commenters 

requested that we consider not issuing 

protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) of the ESA as U.S. fisheries 

are not contributing significantly to the 

primary threat of overutilization of the 

giant manta ray. One of the commenters 

noted that there are no directed fisheries 

for giant manta rays in the U.S. Western 

Pacific Region, and incidental catches 

are rare. Additionally, the commenter 

pointed out that we considered the 

impact on the giant manta ray from the 

Hawaii-based longline and American 

Samoa longline fisheries to be minimal. 

Similarly, the other commenter asserted 

that the Hawaii-based commercial 

longline fisheries pose no risk to the 

giant manta ray and, therefore, 

application of the take prohibition to 

these fisheries is not necessary or 

advisable for the conservation of the 

species. Another commenter urged 

NMFS to consider exempting a very 

small number of giant manta rays for 

collection for public aquarium display. 

In contrast, one commenter urged 

NMFS to promulgate a section 4(d) rule 

to make it unlawful to take a giant 

manta ray, especially for its gill plate. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

the rule should prohibit the trade or sale 

of manta ray gill plates in the United 

States and also include habitat 

protection to ensure ecosystems that 

giant manta rays depend on remain 

intact. Similarly, another commenter 

formally petitioned NMFS under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(e), to extend the ESA section 

9(a) prohibitions to giant manta rays. 

Response: Under the ESA, if a species 

is listed as endangered, the ESA section 

9 prohibitions automatically apply and 

any ‘‘take’’ of, or trade in, the species is 

illegal, subject to certain exceptions. In 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2926 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the case of a species listed as 

threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA gives 

the Secretary discretion to implement 

protective measures the Secretary deems 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of species. Therefore, for 

any species listed as threatened, we can 

impose any or all of the section 9 

prohibitions if we determine such 

measures are necessary and advisable 

for the conservation of the species. 

However, after a review of the threats 

and needs of the giant manta ray, we 

have determined that protective 

regulations pursuant to section 4(d) are 

not currently necessary and advisable 

for the conservation of the species. The 

basis for this determination is provided 

in detail in the Protective Regulations 

Under Section 4(d) of the ESA section 

below; please see that section for more 

information. 

Comments on Designating of Critical 

Habitat 

Comment 17: Two commenters stated 

that NMFS should designate critical 

habitat in U.S. waters concurrently with 

the final listing. One commenter states 

that these areas should include 

aggregation sites along the west coast of 

the United States and the Pacific Trust 

Territories (the Marianas, the Carolines, 

and the Marshalls Island groups), the 

east coast of the United States, the 

coasts of Hawaii, and anywhere else the 

species lives in U.S. waters. The 

commenter notes that there are at least 

two known aggregation sites that should 

be designated with the final listing: The 

area within and surrounding the Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary, and a site off the coast of St. 

Augustine, Florida. Similarly, the other 

commenter also mentions that giant 

manta rays often use the Flower 

Gardens Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary and may also aggregate off the 

east coast of South Florida. 

Response: Section 4(a)(3)(a) of the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires 

that, to the extent prudent and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species. However, if critical habitat 

of such species is not then 

determinable, the Secretary may extend 

the time period for designation by one 

additional year (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)(ii); 50 CFR 424.17(b)). 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) as: (1) 

The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the ESA, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (a) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (b) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

In the proposed rule to list the giant 

manta ray (82 FR 3694; January 12, 

2017), we requested information 

describing the quality and extent of 

habitats for the giant manta ray, as well 

as information on areas that may qualify 

as critical habitat for the species in U.S. 

waters. We stated that specific areas that 

include the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, where such features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, should be 

identified. While the commenters 

provided the general locations of known 

giant manta ray aggregation areas within 

the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and a potential 

aggregation area off the U.S. east coast, 

the commenters did not provide, nor do 

we have, any information on the 

physical or biological features of these 

sites that might make these aggregation 

areas essential to the conservation of the 

species. Additionally, the commenters 

provided no information on specific 

areas that may meet the definition of 

critical habitat within the other 

locations that they listed. We also note 

that critical habitat shall not be 

designated in foreign countries or other 

areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 

424.12(g)); and, therefore, we cannot 

designate critical habitat in the waters of 

the commenter’s requested Pacific Trust 

Territories, specifically the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, Federated States of 

Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau. 

We received no other information 

regarding critical habitat from public 

comments. After reviewing the 

comments provided and the best 

available scientific information, we 

conclude that critical habitat is not 

determinable at this time because data 

sufficient to perform the required 

analyses are lacking. Specifically, we 

find that sufficient information is not 

currently available to: (1) Identify the 

physical and biological features 

essential to conservation of the species 

at an appropriate level of specificity, 

particularly given the uncertainty 

surrounding the species’ life history 

characteristics (e.g., pupping and 

nursery grounds remain unknown) and 

migratory movements, (2) determine the 

specific geographical areas that contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to conservation of the species, 

particularly given the global range of the 

species, and (3) assess the impacts of the 

designation. (See also the Critical 

Habitat section for additional 

information.) However, public input on 

features and areas in U.S. waters that 

may meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the giant manta ray is 

invited. Additional details about 

specific types of information sought are 

provided in the Information Solicited 

section later in this document. Input 

may be sent to the Office of Protected 

Resources in Silver Spring, Maryland 

(see ADDRESSES). Information received 

will be considered in evaluating 

potential critical habitat for this species. 

Comments on Development of a 

Recovery Plan 

Comment 18: One commenter noted 

that NMFS should develop a 

comprehensive recovery plan following 

the ESA listing of the giant manta ray. 

Response: Once a species is listed as 

threatened or endangered, section 4(f) of 

the ESA generally requires that we 

develop and implement recovery plans 

that must, to the maximum extent 

practicable, identify objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination that the 

species may be removed from the list. 

Development of a recovery plan will be 

considered through a separate effort 

subsequent to this rulemaking. 

Comments on the ‘‘Not Warranted’’ 

Final Determination for the Reef Manta 

Ray 

The Federal Register document 

announcing the 12-month finding on the 

petition to list giant and reef manta rays 

under the ESA (82 FR 3694; January 12, 

2017) solicited public comments only 

on the proposal to list the giant manta 

ray as a threatened species. However, 

we also received a few comments from 

one commenter concerning the final 12- 

month ‘‘not warranted’’ determination 

for the reef manta ray. Although that 

determination is a final agency action 

and thus not subject to public comment 

or an obligation to respond to such 

comment, we nevertheless reviewed the 

comments on the 12-month ‘‘not 

warranted’’ determination and take this 

opportunity to provide responses for 

additional clarity below. 

Comment 19: The commenter stated 

that the SPR analysis was inadequate, 

and that NMFS did not identify any 

portion of the range as biologically 

significant to determine whether the 

reef manta ray may be in danger of 

extinction in that portion now or in the 

foreseeable future. Thus, the commenter 

asserts that NMFS relied on an 

inadequate SPR analysis to conclude 

that the risk of extinction is low 

throughout the species’ entire range. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2927 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter regarding the adequacy of 

the SPR analysis. As discussed above, 

the SPR Policy explains that, after 

identifying any portions that warrant 

further consideration, depending on the 

particular facts of the situation, NMFS 

may find it is more efficient to address 

the question of whether any identified 

portions are ‘‘significant’’ first, but in 

other cases it will make more sense to 

examine the status of the species in the 

identified portions first. In the case of 

the reef manta ray, we chose to look at 

the second issue first; that is, we first 

considered whether the species is in 

danger of extinction, or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future, in any 

particular portion of its range. We found 

that in waters off Mozambique and the 

Philippines, M. alfredi has suffered 

declines from targeted fishing, with this 

overutilization likely causing the 

members in this portion to experience a 

higher risk of extinction relative to the 

species overall. Additionally, we 

identified waters off Indonesia, Papua 

New Guinea, and Kiribati as portions of 

the species range where the species is 

likely at higher risk of extinction 

relative to the species overall, due to 

concentrated threats. Having concluded 

the species is likely at higher risk than 

the overall species in these portions (but 

without reaching the point of 

definitively concluding that the species 

is threatened or endangered there for the 

time being), we moved on to the second 

part of the SPR analysis, which requires 

us to determine whether any of these 

portions meet the SPR Policy’s test of 

‘‘significant.’’ Again, as stated in the 

proposed rule, we found that the 

hypothetical loss of the members of the 

species within any or all of these 

portions would not put the entire 

species in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range now or in the 

foreseeable future. This is because the 

remaining populations, which include 

some of the largest identified M. alfredi 

populations, benefit from national 

protections that prevent overutilization 

of the species and are not showing 

evidence of decline. Because we did not 

have any evidence to establish that the 

loss of animals in any or all of the atrisk portions would place the entire 

species in danger of extinction now or 

in the foreseeable future, there was no 

basis to conclude any of the potentially 

at-risk portions were ‘‘significant.’’ 

Because the ‘‘significance’’ prong of the 

analysis was not met, it was 

unnecessary to continue to evaluate 

whether the species may be threatened 

or endangered in those portions. We 

also note that the commenter did not 

provide any new information regarding 

these portions or their significance 

under the SPR Policy. As such, we find 

that our SPR analysis was adequate. 

Comment 20: The commenter stated 

that we did not analyze any potential 

DPSs for reef manta rays and suggests 

that the reef manta ray population in the 

Indo-Pacific may comprise a potential 

SPR and DPS. 

Response: The commenter did not 

provide any species-specific 

information to indicate that potential 

DPSs of reef manta rays exist, nor do we 

have any such information. We are not 

required to consider listing DPSs of a 

species unless we are petitioned to 

evaluate a specific population or 

populations for listing as a DPS(s), and 

the petitioner has provided substantial 

information that the population(s) may 

be warranted for listing as DPS(s). 

Furthermore, as stated in the DPS 

Policy, Congress instructed the Services 

that listing of DPSs is to be done 

sparingly and only when the biological 

evidence supports such a listing (61 FR 

4722; February 7, 1996). In the status 

review, we state that additional studies 

(including genetic sampling) are needed 

to better understand the population 

structure of the species throughout its 

range (particularly given the 

uncertainties in the species’ range, 

habitat use, and life history 

characteristics), indicating a lack of 

available data that may provide insight 

into the ‘‘discreteness’’ or ‘‘significance’’ 

of populations under the DPS Policy. 

We also note that the commenter did 

not provide any species-specific 

information to support the suggestion 

that the reef manta ray population in the 

Indo-Pacific may comprise a potential 

SPR and DPS. Under the SPR Policy, if 

a species is found to be endangered or 

threatened throughout a significant 

portion of its range, and the 

population(s) in that significant portion 

is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS 

rather than the entire taxonomic species 

or subspecies. However, because we did 

not identify any SPRs for reef manta 

rays, there was no basis for evaluating 

whether any SPRs were DPSs. 

Comment 21: The commenter asserted 

that if we list the giant manta ray under 

the ESA, then we must also propose to 

‘‘list’’ the reef manta ray pursuant to the 

ESA’s similarity of appearance 

provision. The commenter stated that 

they are petitioning NMFS to reconsider 

listing the reef manta ray under the ESA 

under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(e). 

Response: The similarity of 

appearance provision of the ESA allows 

the Secretary to treat non-listed species 

as if they were listed species, if certain 

conditions are met and to the extent the 

Secretary determines it is advisable to 

do so. We disagree with the 

commenter’s request to apply this 

provision to the reef manta ray and 

address this issue more fully in our 

response to Comment 15. With regard to 

reconsidering the listing of the reef 

manta ray under the APA, we do not 

find the requested action to be 

warranted at this time. In making our 

12-month finding that the reef manta ray 

does not warrant listing, we considered 

the best available information on the 

species’ biology, ecology, life history, 

threats, and demographic risks to 

determine the species’ overall risk of 

extinction. The commenter did not 

provide any new information to 

consider in support of their request, 

and, as such, our conclusion remains 

the same. We would also like to note 

that petitions for listing species under 

the ESA (including reconsiderations) 

must follow the implementing 

regulations issued jointly by the 

Services at 50 CFR 424.14. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Listing Rule 

We did not receive, nor did we find, 

data or references that presented 

substantial new information that would 

cause us to change our proposed listing 

determination. We did, however, make 

several revisions to the final status 

review report (Miller and Klimovich 

2017) to incorporate, as appropriate, 

relevant information received in 

response to our request for public 

comments and information we collected 

after publication of the proposed rule. 

Specifically, we updated the status 

review to include new information 

regarding: The seasonal occurrence of 

manta rays off the northern Yucatan 

peninsula (Hacohen-Domene ́ et al. 

2017), the diet and trophic levels of the 

two manta ray species (Couturier et al. 

2013; Burgess et al. 2016; Rohner et al. 

2017a; Stewart et al. 2017), life history 

parameters for M. birostris (Nair et al. 

2015; Rohner et al. 2017a), personal 

observations (F. Young, pers. comm. 

2017) and estimates of manta rays off 

the east coast of Florida (Kendall 2010), 

time-series analysis of manta ray 

sightings off Mozambique (Rohner et al. 

2017b), gill plate market prices and 

trends (Hau et al. 2016; O’Malley et al. 

2017), landings of mobula rays in India 

(Nair et al. 2015; Zacharia et al. 2017), 

landings of manta rays off New Zealand 

(Jones and Francis 2017), landings of 

manta rays off Peru (Alfaro-Cordova et 

al. 2017), bycatch (NMFS 2016) and 

CPUE (Western Pacific Regional 

Fisheries Management Council pers. 

comm. 2017, citing NMFS Pacific 

Islands Observer Program unpublished 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2928 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

data) of manta rays in U.S. fisheries, 

longline effort in the Pacific (Williams 

and Terawasi 2016), manta ray catch 

and bycatch data in the eastern Pacific 

(Hall and Roman 2013; IATTC 2016), 

and PSA results for giant manta rays in 

the eastern Pacific Ocean (Duffy and 

Griffiths 2017). As noted above, with 

more detailed discussion in many of the 

previous comment responses, 

consideration of this new information 

did not alter any conclusions (and in 

some cases further supported our 

conclusions) regarding the threat 

assessment or extinction risk analysis 

for either manta ray species. Thus, the 

conclusions contained in the status 

review and determinations based on 

those conclusions in the proposed rule 

are reaffirmed in this final action. 

Species Determination 

We are aware that a recent taxonomic 

study has suggested that Manta birostris 

and Manta alfredi may actually be 

closely related to the Chilean devil ray 

(Mobula tarapacana), with genetic 

analyses that demonstrate support for 

nesting these species under the genus 

Mobula rather than Manta (White et al. 

2017). However, we note that the study 

still recognized both manta rays as 

distinct species (but referred to them as 

Mobula birostris and Mobula alfredi). 

Until the genus name change is formally 

accepted by the scientific community, 

we continue to recognize Manta 

birostris as a species under the genus 

Manta. As such, we consider Manta 

birostris to be a taxonomically-distinct 

species that meets the definition of 

‘‘species’’ pursuant to section 3 of the 

ESA and is eligible for listing under the 

ESA. 

Summary of ESA Section 4(a)(1) 

Factors Affecting the Giant Manta Ray 

As stated previously and as discussed 

in the proposed rule (82 FR 3694; 

January 12, 2017), we considered 

whether any one or a combination of the 

five threat factors specified in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA are contributing to the 

extinction risk of the giant manta ray 

and result in the species meeting the 

definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

‘‘threatened species.’’ The comments 

that we received on the proposed rule, 

as well as new information we collected 

since publication of the proposed rule, 

provided information that was either 

already considered in our analysis, was 

not substantial or relevant, or was 

consistent with or reinforced 

information in the status review and 

proposed rule, and thus, did not change 

our conclusions regarding any of the 

section 4(a)(1) factors or their 

interactions. Therefore, all of the 

information, discussion, and 

conclusions regarding the factors 

affecting the giant manta ray contained 

in the final status review report (Miller 

and Klimovich 2017) and the proposed 

rule is reaffirmed in this final action. 

Extinction Risk 

As discussed previously, the status 

review evaluated the demographic risks 

to the giant manta ray according to four 

categories—abundance and trends, 

population growth/productivity, spatial 

structure/connectivity, and genetic 

diversity. As a concluding step, after 

considering all of the available 

information regarding demographic and 

other threats to the species, we rated the 

species’ extinction risk according to a 

qualitative scale (high, moderate, and 

low risk). The information received 

from public comments on the proposed 

rule, as well as new information we 

collected since publication of the 

proposed rule, was either already 

considered in our analysis, was not 

substantial or relevant, or was 

consistent with or reinforced 

information in the status review report 

and proposed rule, and thus, did not 

affect our extinction risk evaluation for 

the giant manta ray. Our conclusion 

regarding the extinction risk for the 

giant manta ray remains the same. 

Therefore, all of the information, 

discussion, and conclusions on the 

extinction risk of the giant manta ray 

contained in the final status review 

report and the proposed rule is 

reaffirmed in this final action. 

Protective Efforts 

In addition to regulatory mechanisms 

(considered under ESA section 

4(a)(1)(D)), we considered other efforts 

being made to protect giant manta rays 

(pursuant to ESA section 4(b)(1)(A)). We 

considered whether such protective 

efforts sufficiently ameliorated the 

identified threats to the point that they 

would alter the conclusions of the 

extinction risk analysis for the species. 

None of the information we received on 

the proposed rule affected our 

conclusions regarding conservation 

efforts to protect the giant manta ray. 

Thus, all of the information, discussion, 

and conclusions on the protective 

efforts for the giant manta ray contained 

in the final status review report and 

proposed rule are reaffirmed in this 

final action. 

Final Determination 

We have reviewed the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

including the petition, the information 

in the final status review report (Miller 

and Klimovich 2017), the comments of 

peer reviewers, public comments, and 

information that has become available 

since the publication of the proposed 

rule (82 FR 3694; January 12, 2017). 

None of the information received since 

publication of the proposed rule altered 

our analyses or conclusions that led to 

our determination for the giant manta 

ray. Therefore, the determination in the 

proposed rule is reaffirmed in this final 

rule and stated below. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, and after 

considering efforts being made to 

protect M. birostris, we find that the 

giant manta ray is not currently 

endangered or threatened throughout its 

range. However, the giant manta ray is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

a significant portion of its range (the 

Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific 

portion). This portion satisfies the test 

for ‘‘significance’’ from the SPR Policy 

because, without the members in that 

portion, the species would be likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. For the reasons discussed in the 

proposed rule, we do not find that this 

significant portion meets the criteria of 

a DPS. Therefore, we have determined 

that the giant manta ray meets the 

definition of a threatened species and, 

per the SPR Policy, list it is as such 

throughout its range under the ESA. 

Effects of Listing 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include 

recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 

Federal agency requirements to consult 

with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA 

to ensure their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the species or result in 

adverse modification or destruction of 

critical habitat should it be designated 

(16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical 

habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions 

on taking and certain other activities (16 

U.S.C. 1538, 1533(d)). In addition, 

recognition of the species’ imperiled 

status through listing promotes 

conservation actions by Federal and 

State agencies, foreign entities, private 

groups, and individuals. 

Identifying Section 7 Conference and 

Consultation Requirements 

Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) 

of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS 

regulations (50 CFR part 402) require 

Federal agencies to consult with us to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or destroy or adversely 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2929 

modify critical habitat. Our section 7 

regulations require the responsible 

Federal agency to initiate formal 

consultation if a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Examples of 

Federal actions that may affect the giant 

manta ray include: Fishery harvest and 

management practices, military 

activities, alternative energy projects, 

dredging in known giant manta ray 

aggregation sites (e.g., observed feeding 

and cleaning sites), point and non-point 

source discharge of persistent 

contaminants in known giant manta ray 

aggregation sites, toxic waste and other 

pollutant disposal in known giant manta 

ray aggregation sites, and shoreline 

development in known giant manta ray 

aggregation sites. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) 

The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the ESA, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (a) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (b) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures needed 

to bring the species to the point at 

which listing under the ESA is no 

longer necessary. 16 U.S.C. 1532(3). 

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species. Designations of critical 

habitat must be based on the best 

scientific data available and must take 

into consideration the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. 

At this time, we find that critical 

habitat for the giant manta ray is not 

determinable because data sufficient to 

perform the required analyses are 

lacking. Specifically, we find that 

sufficient information is not currently 

available to: (1) Identify the physical 

and biological features essential to 

conservation of the species at an 

appropriate level of specificity, 

particularly given the uncertainty 

regarding habitats required to support 

its life history (e.g., pupping and 

nursery grounds remain unknown) and 

migratory movements, (2) determine the 

specific geographical areas that contain 

the physical and biological features 

essential to conservation of the species, 

particularly given the global range of the 

species, and (3) assess the impacts of the 

designation. Therefore, public input on 

features and areas in U.S. waters that 

may meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the giant manta ray is 

invited. Additional details about 

specific types of information sought are 

provided in the Information Solicited 

section later in this document. Input 

may be sent to the Office of Protected 

Resources in Silver Spring, Maryland 

(see ADDRESSES). Please note that we are 

not required to respond to any input 

provided on this matter. 

Protective Regulations Under Section 

4(d) of the ESA 

We are listing the giant manta ray 

(Manta birostris) as a threatened species. 

In the case of threatened species, ESA 

section 4(d) gives the Secretary 

discretion to determine whether, and to 

what extent, to extend the prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1538(a)(1)) to the species, and 

authorizes us to issue regulations 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the species. We have 

evaluated the needs of and threats to the 

giant manta ray and have determined 

that protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) are not currently necessary 

and advisable for the conservation of the 

species. 

As described in the proposed rule, the 

significant operative threats to the giant 

manta ray are overutilization by foreign 

commercial and artisanal fisheries in a 

significant portion of its range (i.e., the 

Indo-Pacific and eastern Pacific) and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms in 

foreign nations to protect these manta 

rays from the heavy fishing pressure and 

related mortality in these waters outside 

of U.S. jurisdiction. The take and trade 

of the species by persons under U.S. 

jurisdiction were not identified as 

significant threats to the giant manta 

ray. 

Regarding potential take, as stated in 

the proposed rule, giant manta rays may 

be caught as bycatch in U.S. fisheries; 

however, given the rarity of the species 

in the U.S. bycatch data, current levels 

were found to be negligible and 

determined to only have a minimal 

impact on the status of the giant manta 

ray. Furthermore, in many portions of 

the species’ range, and particularly in 

the SPR, current U.S. fishery regulations 

as well as U.S. state and territory 

regulations prohibit the retention of 

manta rays by persons under U.S. 

jurisdiction. For example, in the eastern 

Pacific Ocean, U.S. commercial fishing 

vessels are prohibited from retaining on 

board, transshipping, landing, storing, 

selling, or offering for sale any part or 

whole carcass of a mobulid ray caught 

by vessel owners or operators in the 

IATTC Convention Area (81 FR 50401, 

August 1, 2016). The state of Hawaii 

prohibits any person from knowingly 

capturing or killing a manta ray within 

state marine waters (HI Rev Stat 188– 

39.5 (2016)), and in Florida, it is illegal 

to harvest, possess, land, purchase, sell, 

or exchange any or any part of species 

of the genus Manta and Mobula in state 

waters (FL Admin Code 68B–44.008). In 

Guam, it is unlawful for any person to 

possess, sell, offer for sale, take, 

purchase, barter, transport, export, 

import, trade or distribute ray parts 

(including manta rays), unless for 

subsistence, traditional, or cultural 

sharing purposes (Article 1, Chapter 63 

of Title 5, Guam Code Annotated, Sec. 

63114.2), and in the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, it is 

illegal to feed, take, possess, sell, 

purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase 

or barter, transport, export or import, 

any ray (including manta rays), alive or 

dead, or any part thereof (Pub. L. 15– 

124). Additionally, as noted in the final 

status review report (Miller and 

Klimovich 2017), established Marine 

Protected Areas (MPAs) that limit or 

prohibit fishing also exist that cover 

areas with observed giant manta ray 

presence, including off Guam (Tumon 

Bay Marine Preserve), within the Gulf of 

Mexico (Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary), and in the Central 

Pacific Ocean (Pacific Remote Islands 

Marine National Monument). 

Overall, current management 

measures that are in place for fishermen 

under U.S. jurisdiction appear to 

directly and indirectly contribute to the 

infrequency of interactions between 

U.S. fishing activities and the 

threatened giant manta ray. As such, we 

do not believe these activities are 

contributing significantly to the 

identified threats of overutilization and 

inadequate regulatory measures. We, 

therefore, do not find that developing 

regulations under section 4(d) to 

prohibit some or all of these activities is 

necessary and advisable (considering 

the U.S. interaction with the species is 

negligible and its moderate risk of 

extinction is primarily a result of threats 

from foreign fishing activities). 

Additionally, as mentioned in the 

status review and proposed rule, manta 

rays were included on Appendix II of 

CITES at the 16 Conference of the CITES 

Parties in March 2013, with the listing 

going into effect on September 14, 2014. 

Export of manta rays and manta ray 

products, such as gill plates, require 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
2930 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

CITES permits that ensure the products 

were legally acquired and that the 

Scientific Authority of the State of 

export has advised that such export will 

not be detrimental to the survival of that 

species (after taking into account factors 

such as its population status and trends, 

distribution, harvest, and other 

biological and ecological elements). 

Although this CITES protection was not 

considered to be an action that 

decreased the current listing status of 

the threatened giant manta ray (due to 

its uncertain effects at reducing the 

threats of foreign domestic 

overutilization and inadequate 

regulations, and unknown post-release 

mortality rates from bycatch in 

industrial fisheries), it may help address 

the threat of foreign overutilization for 

the gill plate trade by ensuring that 

international trade of this threatened 

species is sustainable. Regardless, 

because the United States does not have 

a significant (or potentially any) 

presence in the international gill plate 

trade, we have concluded that any 

restrictions on U.S. trade of the giant 

manta ray that are in addition to the 

CITES requirements are not necessary 

and advisable for the conservation of the 

species. 

Therefore, because we find that the 

United States is not a significant 

contributor to the threats facing the 

giant manta ray, we have determined 

that protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) under the ESA are not 

currently necessary and advisable for 

the conservation of the species. Any 

conservation actions for the giant manta 

ray that would bring it to the point that 

the measures of the ESA are no longer 

necessary will ultimately need to be 

implemented by foreign nations. 

Information Solicited 

We request interested persons to 

submit relevant information related to 

the identification of critical habitat of 

the giant manta ray, including specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species that include the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and where such features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Areas 

outside the occupied geographical area 

should also be identified if such areas 

themselves are essential to the 

conservation of the species. ESA 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(g) specify that critical habitat 

shall not be designated within foreign 

countries or in other areas outside of 

U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request 

information only on potential areas of 

critical habitat within waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the 

Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic 

impact, impact on national security, and 

any other relevant impact’’ of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. Section 4(b)(2) also gives the 

Secretary discretion to consider 

excluding from a critical habitat 

designation any particular area where 

the Secretary finds that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

including the area in the designation, 

unless excluding that area will result in 

extinction of the species. For features 

and areas potentially qualifying as 

critical habitat, we also request 

information describing: (1) Activities or 

other threats to the essential features or 

activities that could be affected by 

designating them as critical habitat; and 

(2) the positive and negative economic, 

national security and other relevant 

impacts, including benefits to the 

recovery of the species, likely to result 

if these areas are designated as critical 

habitat. We seek information regarding 

the conservation benefits of designating 

areas within waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction as critical habitat. In 

keeping with the guidance provided by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(2000; 2003), we seek information that 

would allow the monetization of these 

effects to the extent possible, as well as 

information on qualitative impacts to 

economic values. 

Information reviewed may include, 

but is not limited to: (1) Scientific or 

commercial publications; (2) 

administrative reports, maps or other 

graphic materials; (3) information 

received from experts; and (4) 

comments from interested parties. 

Comments and data are particularly 

sought concerning: (1) Maps and 

specific information describing the 

amount, distribution, and use type (e.g., 

foraging or migration) of giant manta ray 

habitats, as well as any additional 

information on occupied and 

unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the 

reasons why any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) 

and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information 

regarding the benefits of designating 

particular areas as critical habitat; (4) 

current or planned activities in the areas 

that might be proposed for designation 

and their possible impacts; (5) any 

foreseeable economic or other potential 

impacts resulting from designation, and 

in particular, any impacts on small 

entities; (6) whether specific 

unoccupied areas may be essential to 

provide additional habitat areas for the 

conservation of the species; and (7) 

potential peer reviewers for a proposed 

critical habitat designation, including 

persons with biological and economic 

expertise relevant to the species, region, 

and designation of critical habitat. We 

solicit information from the public, 

other concerned governmental agencies, 

the scientific community, industry, or 

any other interested party (see 

ADDRESSES). 

References 

A complete list of references used in 

this final rule is available upon request 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has 

concluded that ESA listing actions are 

not subject to the environmental 

assessment requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this final 

rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. This final rule 

does not contain a collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

Executive Order 13771, Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 

regulatory action because this rule is 

exempt from review under E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

determined that this final rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects and 

that a Federalism assessment is not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 14 / Monday, January 22, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2931 

Dated: January 17, 2018. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart 

B, § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

■ 2. In § 223.102, amend the table in 

paragraph (e) by adding an entry for 

‘‘Ray, giant manta’’ in alphabetical order 

under the ‘‘Fishes’’ subheading to read 

as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Critical habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed 

entity 

*******

Fishes 

*******

Ray, giant manta ..... Manta birostris ........ Entire species ......... 83 FR [Insert Federal Register page 

where the document begins], 1/22/18.

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. 2018–01031 Filed 1–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 120919470–3513–02] 

RIN 0648–XF955 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp 

Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic 

States; Closure of the Penaeid Shrimp 

Fishery Off South Carolina 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) off South Carolina 

in the South Atlantic to trawling for 

penaeid shrimp, i.e., brown, pink, and 

white shrimp. This closure is necessary 

to protect the spawning stock of white 

shrimp that has been subject to 

unusually cold weather conditions 

where state water temperatures have 

been 9 °C (48 °F), or less, for at least 7 

consecutive days. 

DATES: The closure is effective January 

17, 2018, until the effective date of a 

notification of opening which NOAA 

will publish in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Helies, 727–824–5305; email: 

Frank.Helies@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

penaeid shrimp fishery of the South 

Atlantic is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Shrimp 

Fishery of the South Atlantic Region 

(FMP). The FMP was prepared by the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (Council) and is implemented 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Amendment 9 to the FMP revised the 

criteria and procedures by which a 

South Atlantic state may request a 

concurrent closure of the EEZ to the 

harvest of penaeid shrimp when state 

waters close as a result of severe winter 

weather (78 FR 35571, June 13, 2013). 

Under 50 CFR 622.206(a), NMFS may 

close the EEZ adjacent to South Atlantic 

states that have closed their waters to 

the harvest of brown, pink, and white 

shrimp to protect the white shrimp 

spawning stock that has been severely 

depleted by cold weather or when 

applicable state water temperatures are 

9 °C (48 °F), or less, for at least 7 

consecutive days. Consistent with those 

procedures and criteria, the state of 

South Carolina has determined that 

unusually cold temperatures have 

occurred and that state water 

temperatures have been 9 °C (48 °F), or 

less, for at least 7 consecutive days and 

that these cold weather conditions pose 

a risk to the condition and vulnerability 

of overwintering white shrimp 

populations in its state waters. South 

Carolina closed its waters on January 10, 

2018, to the harvest of brown, pink, and 

white shrimp, and has requested that 

NMFS implement a concurrent closure 

of the EEZ off South Carolina. In 

accordance with the procedures 

described in the FMP, the state of South 

Carolina submitted a letter to the NMFS 

Regional Administrator (RA) on January 

10, 2018, requesting that NMFS close 

the EEZ adjacent to South Carolina to 

penaeid shrimp harvest as a result of 

severe cold weather conditions. 

NMFS has determined that the 

recommended Federal closure conforms 

with the procedures and criteria 

specified in the FMP and the MagnusonStevens Act, and, therefore, implements 

the Federal closure effective 12:01 a.m., 

local time, January 17, 2018. The 

closure will be effective until the ending 

date of the closure in South Carolina 

state waters, but may be ended earlier 

based on a request from the state. NMFS 

will terminate the closure of the EEZ by 

filing a notification to that effect with 

the Office of the Federal Register. 

During the closure, as specified in 50 

CFR 622.206(a)(2), no person may: (1) 

Trawl for brown, pink, or white shrimp 

in the EEZ off South Carolina; (2) 

possess on board a fishing vessel brown, 

pink, or white shrimp in or from the 

EEZ off South Carolina unless the vessel 

is in transit through the area and all nets 

with a mesh size of less than 4 inches 

(10.2 cm), as measured between the 

centers of opposite knots when pulled 

taut, are stowed below deck; or (3) for 

a vessel trawling within 25 nautical 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES