Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25209 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

determining a species’ listing status 

under the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a document outlining our 

reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We do not believe that any Tribes would 

be affected if we adopt this rule as 

proposed. There are currently no 

Nelson’s checker-mallow sites on Tribal 

lands, although some sites may lie 

within the usual and accustomed places 

for Tribal collection and gathering of 

resources. We welcome input from 

potentially affected Tribes on this 

proposal. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 50 

CFR part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12, in paragraph (h), by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Sidalcea 

nelsoniana’’ under FLOWERING 

PLANTS from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants. 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09106 Filed 4–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 220421–0103] 

RTID 0648–XR121 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Tope Shark as Threatened or 

Endangered Under the Endangered 

Species Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request 

for information, and initiation of status 

review. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) to list the 

tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus) as a 

threatened or endangered species and to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with the listing. We find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Therefore, we are 

commencing a review of the status of 

the tope shark to determine whether 

listing under the ESA is warranted. To 

support a comprehensive status review, 

we are soliciting scientific and 

commercial data regarding this species. 

DATES: Scientific and commercial data 

pertinent to the petitioned action must 

be received by June 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2022–0048 by the following 

method: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2022–0048 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

Interested persons may obtain a copy 

of the petition online at the NMFS 

website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/endangered-speciesconservation/petitions-awaiting-90-dayfindings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Manning, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 427–8466, 

lisa.manning@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 15, 2022, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity and Defend Them All 

Foundation to list the tope shark, 

Galeorhinus galeus, as a threatened or 

endangered species under the ESA and 

to designate critical habitat concurrent 

with the listing. The petition asserts that 

G. galeus is threatened by four of the 

five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) 

Present and threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial and recreational purposes; 

(3) inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (4) other natural or 

manmade factors. In addition to 

requesting that we analyze whether the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25210 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

tope shark warrants listing based on its 

status throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, the petition requests 

that we analyze whether any distinct 

population segments (DPS) of tope shark 

warrant listing. The petition also 

requests that, if we determine the tope 

shark or any DPSs of tope shark warrant 

listing as a threatened species, we 

promulgate a protective regulation 

under section 4(d) of the ESA, and 

requests that we promulgate a regulation 

under section 4(e) of the ESA for species 

similar in appearance to the tope shark. 

The petition is available online (see 

ADDRESSES). 

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 

Provisions and Evaluation Framework 

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

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to list a species as 

threatened or endangered, the Secretary 

of Commerce make a finding on whether 

that petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, and to promptly 

publish such finding in the Federal 

Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When 

it is found that substantial scientific or 

commercial information in a petition 

indicates the petitioned action may be 

warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), 

we are required to promptly commence 

a review of the status of the species 

concerned during which we will 

conduct a comprehensive review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information. In such cases, we conclude 

the review with a finding as to whether, 

in fact, the petitioned action is 

warranted within 12 months of receipt 

of the petition. Because the finding at 

the 12-month stage is based on a more 

thorough review of the available 

information, as compared to the narrow 

scope of review at the 90-day stage, a 

‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not 

prejudge the outcome of the status 

review. 

Under the ESA, a listing 

determination may address a species, 

which is defined to also include 

subspecies and any vertebrate DPS that 

interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). A joint NMFS–U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, ‘‘the 

Services’’) policy clarifies the Services’ 

interpretation of DPSs for the purposes 

of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a 

species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996). A species, 

subspecies, or DPS is ‘‘endangered’’ if it 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) 

and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 

1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA 

and our implementing regulations, we 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered based on any 

one or a combination of the following 

five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to address 

identified threats; (5) or any other 

natural or manmade factors affecting the 

species’ existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 

50 CFR 424.11(c)). 

ESA-implementing regulations issued 

jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ‘‘substantial 

scientific or commercial information’’ in 

the context of reviewing a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species as 

‘‘credible scientific or commercial 

information in support of the petition’s 

claims such that a reasonable person 

conducting an impartial scientific 

review would conclude that the action 

proposed in the petition may be 

warranted.’’ Conclusions drawn in the 

petition without the support of credible 

scientific or commercial information 

will not be considered ‘‘substantial 

information.’’ In reaching the initial (90- 

day) finding on the petition, we will 

consider the information described in 

sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) 

(if applicable). 

Our determination as to whether the 

petition provides substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted will depend in part on the 

degree to which the petition includes 

the following types of information: (1) 

Information on current population 

status and trends and estimates of 

current population sizes and 

distributions, both in captivity and the 

wild, if available; (2) identification of 

the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA that may affect the species and 

where these factors are acting upon the 

species; (3) whether and to what extent 

any or all of the factors alone or in 

combination identified in section 4(a)(1) 

of the ESA may cause the species to be 

an endangered species or threatened 

species (i.e., the species is currently in 

danger of extinction or is likely to 

become so within the foreseeable 

future), and, if so, how high in 

magnitude and how imminent the 

threats to the species and its habitat are; 

(4) information on adequacy of 

regulatory protections and effectiveness 

of conservation activities by States as 

well as other parties, that have been 

initiated or that are ongoing, that may 

protect the species or its habitat; and (5) 

a complete, balanced representation of 

the relevant facts, including information 

that may contradict claims in the 

petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d). 

If the petitioner provides 

supplemental information before the 

initial finding is made and states that it 

is part of the petition, the new 

information, along with the previously 

submitted information, is treated as a 

new petition that supersedes the 

original petition, and the statutory 

timeframes will begin when such 

supplemental information is received. 

See 50 CFR 424.14(g). 

We may also consider information 

readily available at the time the 

determination is made. We are not 

required to consider any supporting 

materials cited by the petitioner if the 

petitioner does not provide electronic or 

hard copies, to the extent permitted by 

U.S. copyright law, or appropriate 

excerpts or quotations from those 

materials (e.g., publications, maps, 

reports, letters from authorities). See 50 

CFR 424.14(c)(6). 

At the 90-day finding stage, we do not 

conduct additional research, and we do 

not solicit information from parties 

outside the agency to help us in 

evaluating the petition. We will accept 

the petitioners’ sources and 

characterizations of the information 

presented if they appear to be based on 

accepted scientific principles, unless we 

have specific information in our files 

that indicates the petition’s information 

is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or 

otherwise irrelevant to the requested 

action. Information that is susceptible to 

more than one interpretation or that is 

contradicted by other available 

information will not be dismissed at the 

90-day finding stage, so long as it is 

reliable and a reasonable person 

conducting an impartial scientific 

review would conclude it supports the 

petitioners’ assertions. In other words, 

conclusive information indicating the 

species may meet the ESA’s 

requirements for listing is not required 

to make a positive 90-day finding. We 

will not conclude that a lack of specific 

information alone necessitates a 

negative 90-day finding if a reasonable 

person conducting an impartial 

scientific review would conclude that 

the unknown information itself suggests 

the species may be at risk of extinction 

presently or within the foreseeable 

future. 

To make a 90-day finding on a 

petition to list a species, we first 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25211 

evaluate whether the information 

presented in the petition, in light of the 

information readily available in our 

files, indicates that the petitioned entity 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ eligible for 

listing under the ESA. Next, if we 

conclude the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information suggesting that the 

petitioned entity may constitute a 

‘‘species,’’ we evaluate whether the 

information indicates that the species 

may face an extinction risk such that 

listing, delisting, or reclassification may 

be warranted; this may be indicated in 

information expressly discussing the 

species’ status and trends, or in 

information describing impacts and 

threats to the species. We evaluate 

whether the petition presents any 

information on specific demographic 

factors pertinent to evaluating 

extinction risk for the species (e.g., 

population abundance and trends, 

productivity, spatial structure, age 

structure, sex ratio, diversity, current 

and historical range, habitat integrity or 

fragmentation), and the potential 

contribution of identified demographic 

risks to extinction risk for the species. 

We then evaluate whether the petition 

presents information suggesting 

potential links between these 

demographic risks and the causative 

impacts and threats identified in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA. 

Information presented on impacts or 

threats should be specific to the species 

and should reasonably suggest that one 

or more of these factors may be 

operative threats that act or have acted 

on the species to the point that it may 

warrant protection under the ESA. 

Broad statements about generalized 

threats to the species, or identification 

of factors that could negatively impact 

a species, do not constitute substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted. We look for information 

indicating that not only is the particular 

species exposed to a factor, but that the 

species may be responding in a negative 

fashion; then we assess the potential 

significance of that negative response. 

Many petitions identify risk 

classifications made by 

nongovernmental organizations, such as 

the International Union on the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the 

American Fisheries Society, or 

NatureServe, as evidence of extinction 

risk for a species. Risk classifications by 

other organizations or made under other 

Federal or state statutes may be 

informative, but such classification 

alone may not provide the rationale for 

a positive 90-day finding under the 

ESA. For example, as explained by 

NatureServe, their assessments of a 

species’ conservation status do ‘‘not 

constitute a recommendation by 

NatureServe for listing under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act’’ because 

NatureServe assessments ‘‘have 

different criteria, evidence 

requirements, purposes and taxonomic 

coverage than government lists of 

endangered and threatened species, and 

therefore these two types of lists should 

not be expected to coincide’’ (https://

explorer.natureserve.org/ 

AboutTheData/DataTypes/ 

ConservationStatusCategories). 

Additionally, species classifications 

under IUCN and the ESA are not 

equivalent; data standards, criteria used 

to evaluate species, and treatment of 

uncertainty are also not necessarily the 

same. Thus, when a petition cites such 

classifications, we will evaluate the 

source of information that the 

classification is based upon in light of 

the standards on extinction risk and 

impacts or threats discussed above. 

Tope Shark Species Description 

The tope shark, G. galeus, is one of 39 

recognized species within the 

houndshark family, Triakidae, and is 

known by many other common names, 

including soupfin shark and school 

shark. The tope sharks’ range includes 

most oceans, specifically the Northeast, 

Eastern Central, Southwest and 

Southeast Atlantic Ocean; the 

Southwest, Southeast, Western Central, 

Eastern Central, and Northeast Pacific 

Ocean; the Mediterranean Sea, and the 

Eastern Indian Ocean. They can be 

found in water depths of up to 826 

meters, but prefer coastal areas and 

occur most frequently within depths up 

to 200 m (Walker et al. 2020). Maximum 

size varies regionally, with maximum 

lengths of up to about 6 feet (200 cm, 

(total length) and weights of up to 98.5 

pounds 44.7 kg (Walker et al. 2020; 

Florida Museum, Fish Profile 2021). Age 

at maturity may also vary regionally and 

has been reported to range from about 

10–15 years for females and about 12– 

17 years for males (Walker et al. 2020, 

COSEWIC 2007). Maximum lifespan is 

40 to 60 years, and generation length 

has been estimated to be 23 to 26.3 years 

(Walker et al. 2020, COSEWIC 2007). 

Tope sharks reproduce every 1 to 3 

years, although a triennial cycle may be 

more common (Peres and Vooren 1991, 

Nosal et al. 2021). They are 

ovoviviparous (i.e., eggs are fertilized 

internally and hatch internally, with no 

placental connection to the mother) and 

produce litters of 20–35 pups on average 

after a roughly 12-month gestation 

period (Walker et al. 2017, Nosal et al. 

2021). The diet is broad, and includes 

many teleost fishes (e.g., herring, 

sardines, anchovies, hake, cod, salmon, 

halibut), as well as some invertebrates 

(e.g., squid, octopus, crabs, annelids; 

Walker 1999; Florida Museum, Fish 

Profile 2021). 

Tope sharks are highly migratory and 

have been reported to occur in small 

schools segregated by sex and age. 

Genetic and tagging data indicate that 

the species may be structured as six 

regional populations, delineated 

generally as Northeast Atlantic 

(includes the Mediterranean Sea), 

southern Africa (Namibia to East 

London, South Africa), Southwest 

Atlantic (southern Brazil to Patagonia), 

Northeast Pacific (British Columbia to 

Mexico, including the Gulf of 

California), Southeast Pacific (Ecuador 

to Chile), and Tasman Sea (Australia 

and New Zealand; Chabot and Allen 

2009, Herna ́ndez 2013, Walker et al. 

2020, Nosal et al. 2021). 

Analysis of the Petition 

The petition addresses a single 

species, G. galeaus; provides the 

scientific and common names for this 

species; and clearly indicates the 

administrative measures being 

requested. The petition also contains a 

detailed, narrative justification for the 

requested listing under the ESA and 

provides information on the species’ 

taxonomy, geographic distribution, and 

threats. Global abundance estimates 

appear to be lacking for this species, but 

information is provided in the petition 

and supporting references regarding 

population status and trends. The 

petition is accompanied by literature 

citations and electronic copies of 

supporting material, including 

published scientific literature, web 

pages, and unpublished reports. 

In the sections that follow, we provide 

a synopsis of our analysis of the 

information provided in the petition 

and readily available in our files 

regarding tope shark population status 

and trends and whether and to what 

extent factors identified in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause the tope 

shark to be an endangered species or a 

threatened species. 

Population Status and Trends 

The petition presents information and 

references indicating that the tope shark 

has declined in most parts of its range, 

and that these declines have been 

driven by overharvest for commercial 

purposes. The tope shark is currently 

categorized as ‘‘critically endangered’’ 

on the IUCN Red List based on trend 

analyses of abundance indices 

indicating steep declines in many parts 

of the range (Southwest Atlantic, 

southern Africa, Australia, and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
25212 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Northeast Atlantic) and an estimated 

median reduction of 88 percent for the 

global population over three generations 

(79 years; Walker et al. 2020). 

The most recent IUCN assessment by 

Walker et al. (2020) presents the results 

of separate trend analyses completed 

using available data from multiple 

geographic regions of the tope shark’s 

range. For instance, using standardized 

catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data from 

three fishery-independent survey 

datasets from the northern (2005–2018) 

and southern (1997–2016) Celtic Seas 

ecoregion and the Azores (1990–2015), 

Walker et al. (2020) estimated annual 

rates of reduction of tope shark in the 

Northeast Atlantic region of 1.7 percent 

and an estimated median reduction of 

76.6 percent over three generations (79 

years). Using limited CPUE data for the 

Southwest Atlantic (specifically 

Argentina) from 1992–2015, they 

estimated annual rates of decline of 5.9 

percent and a median reduction of 99.3 

percent over three generations. For 

Australia, Walker et al. (2020) used 74 

years of stock assessment abundance 

data, collected from 1927–2000, and 

estimated annual rates of reduction of 

2.8 percent and a median reduction of 

90.1 percent over three generation 

lengths. Although the available data 

suggest tope sharks in New Zealand and 

Australia are a single population, 

Walker et al. (2020) also completed a 

separate trend analysis for New 

Zealand. Using standardized CPUE data 

collected from several locations off New 

Zealand during 1990–2016, they 

estimated annual rates of decline of 0.5 

percent and an estimated median 

reduction of 29.8 percent over three 

generations (Walker et al. 2020). 

A stock assessment has also been 

completed for tope shark in South 

Africa, where it remains a commercially 

targeted species. Using commercial 

fisheries catch data as well as scientific 

survey data, the assessment indicated a 

continuous declining trend in tope 

shark abundance at a rate of about 2.7 

percent per year from 1991 to 2016, and 

an estimated 85.1 percent decline over 

three generations (Winker et al. 2019). 

No stock assessments or abundance 

indices appear to be available for the 

Northeast Pacific region (COSEWIC 

2007, Walker et al. 2020). 

ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors 

The petition asserts that the tope 

shark is experiencing threats under 

section 4(a)(1)(A) of the ESA as a result 

of habitat degradation and destruction 

associated with climate change. The 

petition discusses and provides 

references regarding direct and indirect 

climate-change-driven impacts, 

including physical and chemical 

changes to ocean habitats (e.g., ocean 

warming, increasing ocean acidity), 

changes in ocean circulation patterns, 

declines in primary productivity and 

upper-level consumers, range shifts for 

shark species, and negative health 

consequences for sharks. Available 

scientific evidence has clearly 

established that climate change has 

affected and continues to affect the 

distributions of many marine species as 

well as their productivity and 

phenology (Bindof et al. 2019, Morely et 

al. 2018). Experimental results have also 

revealed that ocean warming and 

acidification occurring under levels of 

carbon dioxide projected to occur by the 

end of this century can impair prey 

detection (olfaction) and hunting 

behavior and impact body condition 

and growth in some shark species 

(Dixson et al. 2015, Pistevos et al. 2015, 

Rosa et al. 2017). Although these 

various climate-change impacts are 

concerning, the extent to which tope 

sharks in particular may be threatened 

by such impacts is not clear based on 

the information in the petition or 

otherwise readily available. 

The petition also asserts that high 

voltage undersea cables are degrading 

ocean habitats used by tope sharks and 

are contributing to extinction risk for 

this species. Specific impacts from high 

voltage undersea cables identified in the 

petition include interference with tope 

sharks’ navigation, feeding, and 

predation. However, information to 

substantiate that tope sharks are being 

negatively affected by undersea power 

cables is not provided and appears to be 

lacking in general. 

The petition identifies overutilization 

for commercial purposes under section 

4(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and inadequate 

management of fisheries under section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA as the primary 

threats to the tope shark. Information in 

the petition and the cited references 

indicate that tope sharks have been 

fished commercially, typically with 

gillnets and longlines, throughout most 

of their range for meat, fins, and livers, 

which are rich in vitamin A. Demand 

for the liver oil in particular led to 

relatively intense commercial harvest of 

tope sharks during the 1930s and 1940s 

in several parts of its range, including 

the Northeast Pacific, Southwest 

Atlantic, South Africa, Australia, and 

New Zealand. This period of increased 

fishing pressure subsided fairly quickly, 

however, as the demand for shark liver 

oil declined and, in some locations, as 

stocks were depleted (COSEWIC 2007, 

Walker 1999). For example, from 1937– 

1949, an estimated 840,000 tope sharks 

were harvested in the Northeast Pacific 

for their livers, and the recorded 

commercial catch declined from a peak 

of over 4,000 t in 1939 to 287 t by 1944 

(Walker 1999, Walker et al. 2020). This 

population is thought to have collapsed 

as a result of overexploitation, and 

although it is currently subject to a low 

level of commercial and recreational 

fishing in California, its current status is 

unknown (COSEWIC 2007). 

Information presented in the petition 

and cited references regarding ongoing 

commercial fishing for and retention of 

tope sharks in other parts of the range 

do suggest cause for concern. For 

instance, in South Africa, results of the 

fairly recent stock assessment indicate a 

greater than 99 percent probability that 

the stock is overfished and subject to 

overfishing (Winker et al. 2019). The 

recent IUCN assessment by Walker et al. 

(2020), citing a stock assessment for 

Australia, states that the Australian 

government has classified the tope shark 

as overfished and that the current 

biomass of this stock is below 20 

percent of unexploited levels. The 

petition also notes that for the Northeast 

Atlantic, the landings limit 

recommended in 2018 and 2019 (i.e., 

376 t) by the International Council for 

the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has 

been exceeded based on the incomplete 

annual landings reported for tope shark 

during 2005–2018, which ranged from 

542 t to 715 t (Walker et al. 2020). 

Directed fishing for tope sharks is 

prohibited in several areas, including 

the United Kingdom (since 2008, expect 

for rod and reel), Mediterranean (since 

2012), and Canada (since 2012). Other 

management measures in place within 

some range countries to address both 

directed and incidental take of tope 

sharks include limits on retention of 

bycatch and daily catch limits, seasonal 

and spatial area closures (e.g., breeding 

and nursery areas), quotas and limited 

entry systems, and gear restrictions. 

Within the United States, Federal 

protections (e.g., the Shark Conservation 

Act), as well as regulations in individual 

States regarding possession, sale, and 

trade of shark fins are being 

implemented to prevent the practice of 

shark finning (i.e., removing shark fins 

and discarding the body at sea). In 2020, 

the tope shark was also listed on 

Appendix II of the Convention on 

Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 

which does not directly confer 

protections on the species, but does 

establish a framework and call upon 

Parties to develop agreements to 

conserve the species. Evidence of stock 

recovery or stabilization following 

implementation of some of these 

management measures is noted for at 

least a few locations, including the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Proposed Rules 25213 

Northeast Pacific and Northeast Atlantic 

(Walker et al. 2020); however, the 

available trend analyses and stock 

assessments discussed in the petition 

suggest that existing management 

measures may be inadequate to prevent 

population declines throughout most of 

the range. Recreational catch of tope 

sharks is also unreported or underreported, and therefore its impact and 

any related management measures 

cannot be fully assessed. 

Lastly, the petition asserts that tope 

sharks are threatened by toxic pollutants 

in the marine environment, including 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and 

trace metals (e.g., mercury). That sharks 

bioaccumulate such contaminants has 

been well documented, and 

concentrations of various contaminants 

in sharks have been shown to vary with 

multiple factors such as diet, length, 

weight, sex, species, and habitat (Walker 

1999, Lyons et al. 2013, Kibria and 

Haroon 2015). High mercury 

concentrations in tope sharks in 

particular led to concerns over human 

consumption of the meat and 

consequently impacted demand and 

affected markets in some locations 

during and 1970s and 1980s (Walker 

1999). The petition states that 

bioaccumulation of toxic contaminants 

may have negative health consequences 

for tope sharks, such as impaired 

immune function, endocrine disruption, 

infertility, and birth defects. However, 

information to indicate whether and 

how toxic contaminants are negatively 

affecting tope shark health in particular 

is not provided and may not be 

available. 

Petition Finding 

After reviewing the petition, the 

literature cited in the petition, and other 

information readily available in our 

files, we find there is substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

indicating that listing tope sharks under 

the ESA may be warranted. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of 

the ESA and NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we 

will commence a status review of this 

species. During the status review, we 

will determine whether G. galeus is in 

danger of extinction (endangered) or 

likely to become so (threatened) 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. As the petition did not request 

that we consider listing any specific 

DPSs, we will first assess the status of 

the taxonomic species, and then based 

on that assessment, consider whether 

additional analysis of potential DPSs is 

warranted and appropriate. As required 

by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, within 

12 months of the receipt of the petition 

(February 15, 2023), we will make a 

finding as to whether listing the tope 

shark (or any DPSs) as an endangered or 

threatened species is warranted. If 

listing is warranted, we will publish a 

proposed rule and solicit public 

comments before developing and 

publishing a final rule. If applicable, the 

request to promulgate regulations under 

section 4(d) and section 4(e) of the ESA 

would be considered in accordance with 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 553) and applicable 

Departmental regulations, and 

appropriate action would be taken (50 

CFR 424.14(j)). 

Information Solicited 

To ensure that the status review is 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial data, we are soliciting 

relevant data and information from 

interested parties regarding the tope 

shark. Specifically, we are soliciting 

information for this species in the 

following areas: 

(1) Historical and current abundance 

and population trends throughout its 

range; 

(2) Historical and current distribution, 

population structure, and genetic 

diversity; 

(3) Current condition of its habitat 

and current and future threats to these 

habitats; 

(4) Historical and current data on 

bycatch and retention of tope sharks in 

industrial, commercial, artisanal, and 

recreational fisheries throughout its 

range; 

(5) Data on trade of tope shark and 

their products, including fins, meat, and 

liver oil; and 

(6) The effects of other known or 

potential threats to tope sharks over the 

short-term or long-term; and 

(7) Management, regulatory, or 

conservation programs for tope sharks, 

including mitigation measures related to 

any known or potential threats to the 

species within specific range countries. 

We request that all data and 

information be accompanied by 

supporting documentation such as 

reprints of pertinent publications or 

bibliographic references. Please send 

any comments in accordance with the 

instructions provided in the ADDRESSES

section above. We will base our findings 

on a review of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, including 

relevant information received during the 

public comment period. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (See 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: April 22, 2022. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09032 Filed 4–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1