        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
        [Docket No. 120807313-2313-01]
        RIN 0648-XC154
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List the Northeastern Pacific Ocean Distinct Population Segment of Great White 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 two petitions received to list the northeastern Pacific Ocean population of great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) as a threatened or endangered distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that the petitions and information in our files present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of the species to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested party.

          DATES:
          Information and comments on the subject action must be received by November 27, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, information, or data, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0176” by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0176” in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Mail or hand-delivery: Protected Resources Division, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and may be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or other information you wish to protect from public disclosure. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 980-4021; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8469.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On June 25, 2012, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list the northeastern Pacific Ocean DPS of great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated for this DPS under the ESA. On August 13, 2012, we received a second petition, filed jointly by Oceana, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and Shark Stewards, to list the northeastern Pacific Ocean DPS of white shark (another common name for the great white shark) under the ESA and designate critical habitat. Both petitions bring forth much of the same or related factual information on the biology and ecology of great white sharks, and raise several identical or similar issues related to potential factors affecting this species. As a result, we are considering both petitions simultaneously in this 90-day finding. Copies of the petitions are available upon request (see ADDRESSES, above).
        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 status review with a finding published in the Federal Register as to whether or not 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 thorough review of the available information, as compared to the more limited 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 any subspecies and, for vertebrate species, any DPS which 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 agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” 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 (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 factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).

        ESA implementing regulations define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)). In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
        Judicial decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding stage, in making a determination that a petitioned action “may be” warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition need not establish a “strong likelihood” or a “high probability” that a species is either threatened or endangered to support a positive 90-day finding.
        We evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the 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 indicating the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude 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 negates a positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the uncertainty from the lack of information suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.
        To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
        Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information 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 non-governmental 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 the classification alone does not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
        Distribution and Life History of the Great White Shark

        The great white shark (also known as “white shark”) is a circumglobal species that resides primarily in temperate and sub-tropical waters (Compagno et al., 1997; Domeier and Nasby-Lucas, 2006; Domeier et al., 2012). White sharks commonly inhabit coastal and continental shelf waters, although they have been observed entering marine bays, estuaries, lagoons, and harbors (Compagno et al., 1997). Recent studies suggest that these sharks also spend considerable amount of time in open ocean habitats thousands of kilometers from shore (Domeier, 2012). Areas likely to attract adult white sharks include coastal waters adjacent to pinniped colonies or haulout sites, as these are favored prey species (Klimley et al., 1996; Hussey et al., 2012). Known prey of white sharks also includes a wide range of other species from smaller demersal fish, such as rockfish, to giant pelagic species, such as tuna and swordfish, as well as sea turtles, seabirds, cetaceans, and other species of sharks (Fergusson, 1996; Long and Jones, 1996; Wilson and Patyten, 2008; IUCN, 2009; Santana-Morales et al., 2012). White sharks are recognized as apex predators throughout the oceanic and coastal marine environments where they occur, and may play an important role in ecosystem balance and population control for a number of other marine species (Myers et al., 2007; Wilson and Patyten, 2008). White sharks demonstrate the ability to undertake transoceanic migrations to specific locations in patterns that appear to be predictable (Boustany et al., 2002; Jorgensen et al., 2010; Chapple et al., 2011; Domeier, 2012).

        Great white sharks are distinguished by their stout spindle-shaped body, moderately long and bluntly conical snout, five long gill slits, large falcate first dorsal fin with free rear tip located over the pectoral inner margins, pivoting second dorsal and anal fins, white ventral body color, and lack of any secondary keels on the base of the caudal fin. The teeth are large, flat, and triangular shaped, with blade-like serrations, although teeth in the rear of the mouth get progressively smaller and sometimes lack serration, especially in younger sharks (Compagno et al., 1997; FAO, 2012). The maximum size of this species has not been established, but has been estimated at about 6 m (19 ft), and possibly up to 6.4 m (21 ft), or more (Cailliet et al., 1985; Wilson and Patyten, 2008; IUCN, 2009). Estimated weight of the largest individuals is nearly 3,000 kg (6,600 lbs) (Cailliet et al., 1985; Anderson et al., 2011).

        Available information on the general life history pattern of white sharks suggests that females mature at about 12-14 years of age, and about 4-5 m (13-16 ft) in length. Males mature at 9-10 years old, and about 3.5-4.1 m (11.5-13.5 ft) in length (Compagno et al., 1997). It is believed that females give birth at 2 or 3-year intervals to litters of 2-10 pups that are 1-1.5 m (3.3-4.9 ft) in length after a 12-22 month gestation (Francis, 1996; Wilson and Patyten, 2008; Domeier, 2012). Embryos are oophagus, meaning they consume and store yolk in their stomachs (Francis, 1996; Uchida et al., 1996), and viviparous (live) birth of pups likely occurs sometime between May and October (Domeier, 2012). Specific knowledge of pup survival rates is not available, but is estimated to be low (CITES, 2004).

        Primary concentrations of white sharks occur in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and the northeastern Pacific Ocean, with other white sharks observed in the north Atlantic and the Mediterranean (Boustany et al., 2002; Domeier and Nasby-Lucas, 2006; Weng et al., 2007; Jorgensen et al., 2010). Genetic and migration studies provide evidence that these may represent separate populations (Jorgensen et al., 2010). Mitochondrial DNA suggests at least three matrilineal populations: South Africa/northwest Atlantic; southwest Pacific; and northeastern Pacific (Gubili et al., 2012). Although the southwestern Pacific and northeastern Pacific populations could potentially interbreed, the genetic sampling indicates that these two populations are largely reproductively isolated. It has been suggested that the northeastern Pacific population was founded by relatively few sharks within the last 200,000 years, and hasn't mixed with other shark populations near Australia or South Africa since (Hance, 2009; Jorgensen et al., 2010).

        White sharks in the northeastern Pacific Ocean have been observed from Baja California to the Bering Sea (Kato, 1965; COSEWIC, 2006) and offshore out to Hawaii. Using satellite and acoustic telemetry, researchers have followed movements of white sharks in the northeastern Pacific Ocean and discovered patterns of site fidelity and repeated homing in structured seasonal migrations, including fixed destinations, schedules, and routes (Boustany et al., 2002; Jorgensen et al., 2010). As a result, three core areas have been identified in the central and northeastern Pacific: (1) North American shelf waters; (2) slope and offshore waters of Hawaii; and (3) an area between the North American coast and Hawaii termed the “white shark café” or Shared Offshore Foraging Area (SOFA) (Jorgensen et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2011; Domeier, 2012). Each winter, great white sharks leave coastal aggregation sites off of central California (Farallon Islands/Año Nuevo/Point Reyes) and migrate 2000-5000 km offshore to subtropical and tropical pelagic habitats, returning to coastal aggregation sites in late summer. Site fidelity in North American coastal hotspots has also been documented using photo-identification (Jorgensen et al., 2010; Chapple et al., 2011; Sosa-Nishizaki et al., 2012). Guadalupe Island, located 250 miles off the coast of Baja California, Mexico, is also a preferred aggregation site for adults (Sosa-Nishizaki et al., 2012). Adult males annually migrate from preferred aggregation sites to the SOFA/white shark café. Females have been observed to migrate biennially between preferred aggregation sites and the area surrounding the SOFA/white shark café, usually after males have returned to coastal aggregation sites (Domeier, 2012).

        The coastal areas of southern California and Baja California, Mexico, appear to be important nursery areas hosting large concentrations of young-of-the-year (YOY) and juvenile great white sharks (Dewar et al. 2004; Weng et al., 2007; Galván-Magaña et al., 2011; Domeier, 2012; Santana-Morales et al., 2012). Information gained from the records of white shark bycatch in California and Baja fisheries, including gillnet, seine-net, and hook and line fisheries (Lowe et al., 2012; Santana-Morales et al., 2012), along with relatively consistent reporting of juvenile white shark observations along the southern California coast, lend support to the assertion that this area is important developmental habitat for white sharks before they mature into larger adults. Estimates of abundance have not been available historically, but recent studies have suggested the population size at two known aggregation sites (Farallon Islands/Central California and Guadalupe Island) in the northeastern Pacific Ocean is around 340 sub-adults and adults (Chapple et al., 2011; Sosa-Nishizaki et al., 2012).
        Analysis of the Petitions and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
        The two petitions request the same action, to list the northeastern Pacific Ocean (NEP) DPS of great white shark (or white shark) as endangered or threatened under the ESA and to designate critical habitat for the DPS. Therefore, we evaluated the information provided in both petitions and readily available in our files to determine if the petitions presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Both petitions contain information on the species, including the taxonomy, species description, geographic distribution, habitat, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. Both petitions state that a primary threat to the NEP population of white shark is exploitation by fishing (historical and current) and bycatch in fisheries. Both petitions also assert that the lack of adequate regulatory protection worldwide, bioaccumulation of contaminants, and habitat degradation, as well as the species' biological constraints, increase the susceptibility of the NEP population of white shark to extinction.

        According to both petitions, the NEP population of white shark qualifies as a DPS because the NEP population is both discrete and significant, as defined under the Services' DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The WildEarth Guardians petition asserts that all of the five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of the NEP population, whereas the Oceana et al. petition does not discuss disease and predation as a factor that is adversely affecting the NEP population. In the following sections, we analyze the information presented by the petitions and in our files on the qualification of the NEP population of white shark as a DPS and the specific ESA section 4(a)(1) factors affecting the population's risk of extinction.
        Qualification of Northeastern Pacific Ocean Population as a DPS

        Both petitions assert that the NEP population of white shark qualifies as a DPS, because it is both a discrete and significant population segment of the species, as defined in the NMFS and USFWS policy on DPSs (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). First, the petitions state that the NEP population is discrete based on both genetic and spatial separation from other populations of white shark. Genetic analyses indicate that the NEP population of white sharks is similar to and descended from the Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) population (Jorgensen et al., 2010; Gubili et al., 2012). The NEP population was likely established during the Late Pleistocene, from a limited number of founders from the ANZ population, but has since had little gene flow with the ANZ population (Jorgensen et al., 2010). Thus, although the two populations can interbreed, they are thought to be largely reproductively isolated (Jorgensen et al., 2010).

        In addition to genetic separation, the NEP population is geographically separated from other populations, adheres to predictable seasonal migratory routes, and exhibits strong site fidelity within the NEP. As discussed above, white sharks in the NEP population range from Baja California to the Bering Sea, and out to Hawaii. Tagged white sharks from the NEP population consistently used three core areas within the northeastern and central Pacific ocean: (a) The coastal shelf waters of North America (primarily from central California to Baja California); (b) the slope and offshore waters of the Hawaiian archipelago; and (c) offshore waters between California and Hawaii, including an offshore habitat approximately halfway between California and Hawaii referred to as the SOFA/white shark café, used primarily by adults (Boustany et al., 2002; Jorgensen et al., 2010; Domeier, 2012). The individuals followed seasonal migratory patterns, generally moving offshore starting in winter and returning to the California and Baja California coast in the late summer (Jorgensen et al., 2010; Domeier, 2012). Tagged individuals from the NEP population did not show any straying or spatial overlap with the ANZ population (Jorgensen et al., 2010). YOY and juvenile white sharks also stay within the geographic boundaries of the NEP population, likely using nearshore, shallow waters of the Southern California Bight and Baja California as nursery habitats, with adults likely aggregating at sites off central California and at Guadalupe Island (off Baja California) to mate (Domeier, 2012). Thus, the available information on migratory behavior and habitat use indicates that the NEP population is geographically separated from other white shark populations.
        Second, the petitions state that the NEP population is discrete because of international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (i.e., the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as a factor to consider in determining whether a species is endangered or threatened). The petitions state that a large portion of the NEP population's habitat is within U.S. waters, highlighting the importance of U.S. protections for the species. The petitions also argue that the NEP population is discrete because it ranges internationally into waters with differing management regimes, particularly when occupying offshore habitats and visiting aggregation sites off Baja California, where it may be subject to exploitation by non-U.S. entities. However, the Services' DPS policy states that a population may be considered discrete if it is separated from other populations by international boundaries within which significant differences in regulatory mechanisms exist. That the NEP population crosses these international boundaries actually argues against considering this population as discrete from other white shark populations. Thus, the NEP population is not considered discrete based on this factor. Nevertheless, the information available in the petitions and in our files provides evidence suggesting the NEP population may be discrete based on both genetic and spatial separation from other populations.

        Both petitions make the case that the NEP population is significant to the taxon. As described above, the NEP population does not appear to overlap spatially with other populations (Jorgensen et al., 2010; Domeier, 2012; Gubili et al., 2012). The petitions reason that loss of this population would result in a significant gap in the range of the species because it is unlikely, given the geographic separation of the NEP population from other populations, that sharks from other populations would expand their distribution into the NEP's current habitats. The petitions also state that the NEP population is genetically differentiated from other white shark populations, as described above. In addition, the Oceana et al. petition contends that the NEP population occupies an ecological setting that is unique to this species, because they are the only population to occupy coastal waters off California and the SOFA. Overall, the information available in the petitions and in our files suggests that the NEP population of white shark may be significant to the species. The Oceana et al. petition also argues that great white sharks play an important ecological role that is essential for the health of the NEP ecosystem, as a top predator that regulates prey populations (e.g., fish, other sharks, and pinnipeds). We do not comment on the merit of this statement, but note that in determining whether a discrete population segment is significant, the NMFS and USFWS policy focuses on the biological and ecological significance of the population segment to the taxon, not to the ecosystem.
        Based on the above analysis, we conclude that the information in the two petitions and in our files suggests that the NEP population of white shark may qualify as a DPS under the discreteness and significance requirements.
        The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

        Both petitions assert that habitat degradation, largely associated with increasing human activity, poses a threat to the NEP population of white shark, although the two petitions focus on different sources of habitat degradation. The Oceana et al. petition briefly mentions that pollutant discharge can degrade coastal aggregation and nursery habitats, whereas the WildEarth Guardians petition goes into more detail on this potential threat. The WildEarth Guardians petition cites urban stormwater runoff and point source discharge as important sources of pollutants (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers, trace metals, synthetic organic compounds, petroleum, and pathogens) into the Southern California Bight (DiGiacomo et al., 2004). The petition states that these pollutants threaten predators like white sharks, primarily through effects on their prey. For example, historical discharges of organochlorines, such as DDT and PCBs, into the Southern California Bight have resulted in high levels of these contaminants in local populations of pinnipeds (Blasius and Goodmanlowe, 2008), one of the prey resources for white sharks. Both petitions cite a recent finding that young white sharks sampled off California have high levels of mercury, DDT, PCBs, and chlordanes that could result in physiological impairment (Mull et al., 2012). The WildEarth Guardians petition briefly states that water quality in areas off Mexico where the NEP population occurs may also be affected by contaminants (Parks Watch, 2004).

        The WildEarth Guardians petition also suggests that the concentration of marine debris in the North Pacific Gyre (the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”) may have deleterious effects on offshore habitats, including the SOFA. The main concern expressed in the petition is the concentration of plastic of various sizes in the “Garbage Patch” (Algalita, 2009) which could be ingested by white sharks in the area either directly or ingested by their prey. The petition also suggests that accumulation of persistent organic pollutants on the plastic (Algalita, 2009) may pose another threat to the health of white sharks. We note, however, that it appears to be unclear exactly what the adults (primarily males) are preying on in the SOFA (Jorgensen et al., 2010; Domeier, 2012) because the area is devoid of the small marine mammals typically preyed upon by adult white sharks (Domeier, 2012). Adults in the SOFA may be feeding on squid or other species that target squid (Domeier, 2012). Without specific information about the extent to which adults in the SOFA are feeding and what they are feeding on, it is difficult to evaluate the potential effects of plastic marine debris on the NEP population's feeding habitat and prey resources.
        The Oceana et al. petition focuses on two sources of habitat degradation: (1) Decreased prey resources due to human exploitation; and (2) the effects of ocean acidification on the California Current ecosystem. The WildEarth Guardians petition briefly mentions that fisheries activities in coastal areas may deplete important prey resources for the NEP population (CITES, 2004). The Oceana et al. petition provides more detail, stating that human exploitation depleted populations of pinnipeds, an important prey resource for adult white sharks. The petition contends that although pinniped populations are currently increasing, they were depleted for a long period of time and remain below historical levels. We note that the most recent stock assessments estimate that harbor seals may be at carrying capacity (NMFS, 2011a) and that northern elephant seals have almost reached their carrying capacity for pups per year (NMFS, 2007). Population trends have generally been increasing since the 1980s or earlier for harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals in California (NMFS, 2007; 2011a; 2011b). Thus, although these prey resources may have been limited in the past when pinniped populations were at historical lows, the populations have been increasing over the last 30 years or more and may not currently be limiting. For example, an increased frequency of observed shark attacks on prey off the South Farallon Islands from 1983 to 1993 indicated a potential increase in the white shark population at the islands, which may be explained by increased recruitment of younger white sharks supported by the increase and stabilization of pinniped prey resources over the 1970s and 1980s (Pyle et al., 1996). Further analysis is needed to evaluate what effect changes in pinniped populations have had on the status of white shark populations over time. The petition also states that there have been and continue to be major commercial fisheries for most of the other prey resources supporting various life stages of white sharks (e.g., fish species, crustaceans, cephalopods; Klimley, 1985; Ellis and McCosker, 1995). Again, further analysis is needed to specifically evaluate the impacts of these fisheries on prey resources for white sharks.
        The Oceana et al. petition also contends that the effects of ocean acidification could have negative impacts on the marine food web within the California Current ecosystem, including on the NEP population of white shark. The petition cites a model simulation study which predicts that by 2050, the oceanic uptake of increased atmospheric CO2 will lower the pH and the saturation state of aragonite (a mineral form of calcium carbonate, used by calcifying organisms) in nearshore waters of the California Current system to levels well below the natural range for this area (Gruber et al., 2012). The petition states that these effects of ocean acidification will have negative impacts on fish species, referencing recent studies showing that high CO2 and low pH levels impair olfactory responses and homing ability in clownfish (Munday et al., 2009) and can lead to cardiac failure in some fish species (Ishimatsu et al., 2004). The petition readily admits, however, that the severity of effects on specific species is uncertain. Some fish species may experience metabolic responses to elevated CO2 levels at the cellular level, but are able to compensate for those responses at the whole animal level, making them less sensitive to the effects of ocean acidification (Portner, 2008). In addition, extrapolating specific effects at the species levels to the overall ecosystem (e.g., effects on prey availability and predator-prey interactions for top predators like white sharks) is highly uncertain. The petition also states that ocean acidification can potentially affect marine mammals and other marine life by reducing the sound absorption of seawater and allowing sound to travel further (Hester et al., 2008). However, the petition does not explain what the potential effects on marine mammals and other marine life may be or how any such effects relate to the degradation of white shark habitat (e.g., the availability or abundance of prey resources). The available information is not sufficient to determine if ocean acidification may be threatening the habitat of the NEP population of white shark such that listing may be warranted.
        We conclude that the information in the petitions and in our files suggests that habitat degradation associated with pollutant discharge in the Southern California Bight may be impacting the health of the NEP population of white shark. Human exploitation may have impacted prey resources (e.g., pinnipeds and fish and invertebrate species) in the past; however, further analyses are needed to evaluate the recent and current impacts on prey resources. In addition, the information provided on the effects of marine debris in the North Pacific Gyre or ocean acidification is insufficient to evaluate whether these factors may be threatening the habitat of the NEP population of white shark such that listing may be warranted.
        Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

        Information from both petitions suggests that a primary threat to the NEP population of white shark is from fisheries. The petitions cite information on the effects of fisheries on white sharks worldwide and within the NEP. White sharks are harvested in targeted fisheries and as bycatch and are highly prized for their teeth, jaws, and fins. White sharks are primarily caught incidentally in commercial fisheries using longlines, setlines, gillnets, trawls, fish traps, and other gear (Compagno, 2001; Fowler et al., 2005; Lowe et al., 2012; Santana-Morales et al., 2012). The curious nature of white sharks makes them more vulnerable to incidental capture, and their high value and negative reputation may contribute to the killing of incidentally caught individuals rather than being released alive (Fowler et al., 2005). CITES (2004a) estimated that low to mid hundreds of white sharks are killed annually as bycatch within each major region of the species' range. Targeted sport and commercial fisheries for white sharks also exist worldwide. Targeted sports fisheries may either kill or release sharks alive, but post-release mortality is unknown. It is estimated that tens to low hundreds of white sharks are killed in sports fisheries worldwide each year (CITES, 2004). Targeted commercial fisheries for white sharks are thought to be uncommon and opportunistic when aggregations are found, but the species' site fidelity and tendency to aggregate in predictable areas make it vulnerable to over-exploitation (CITES, 2004). Targeted commercial fisheries worldwide may also kill tens to low hundreds of white sharks each year (CITES, 2004).

        In the NEP Ocean, there is little commercial fishing activity in the SOFA, providing a potential refuge from incidental capture for individuals when they occupy this offshore area (Domeier, 2012). However, the lack of international laws to protect great white sharks in international waters is a potential threat to the species (Domeier, 2012; discussed further under “Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms”). White sharks are most vulnerable to fisheries capture when occupying nearshore aggregation or nursery habitats, especially YOY and juvenile stages (Domeier, 2012). Off California, there have been no directed fisheries for white sharks, but incidental and targeted catch has occurred (Lowe et al., 2012). An analysis of fishery-dependent catch records for the Southern California Bight from 1936 to 2009 found that the majority of the reported white shark captures (where size was indicated) were of YOY sharks (60 percent), followed by juveniles (32 percent) and subadults/adults (8 percent); however, the proportion of YOY sharks in the reported catch increased to 77 percent after the nearshore gillnet ban was implemented in 1994 (Lowe et al., 2012). Commercial entangling nets (81 percent) and recreational hook-and-line fishing (8 percent) accounted for the majority of the reported white shark captures (Lowe et al., 2012). The number of reported white shark captures in commercial entangling nets has been 20 or less from 1985 through 2009, except in 1985 when 25 captures were reported (Lowe et al., 2012). The analysis suggests that the effects of incidental capture in gillnet fisheries off California have decreased compared to historical effects. As gillnet fishing effort decreased from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, so did reports of white shark captures (Lowe et al., 2012). However, although gillnet fishing effort remained stable or decreased from the mid-1990s through 2009, reports of white shark captures increased from 2005 through 2009 (Lowe et al., 2012). Increases in the number of reported captures in the gillnet fisheries since 2005, despite stable or decreased effort, may be the result of increased reporting of captures and/or an increase in the abundance of white sharks due to the nearshore gillnet ban and changes in offshore gillnet regulations (Lowe et al., 2012). Also, data from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Juvenile White Shark Tagging Program indicate that YOY and juvenile white sharks have relatively high post-release survival after being caught in gillnet gear (Lowe et al., 2012).

        Incidental catch of white sharks also continues to occur off Baja California. Incidental catch of 111 great white sharks was reported from 1999 through 2010, consisting of YOY (79.8 percent) and juvenile (20.2 percent) sharks (Santana-Morales et al., 2012). Incidental catch primarily occurred in bottom gillnet gear (74.7 percent), but also in drift gillnet (18 percent) and artisanal seine net (4.5 percent) gear (Santana-Morales et al., 2012).

        The petitions assert that the continued incidental catch of white sharks poses a threat to the species, because the removal of just a few individuals could have a substantive effect on the local population (Pyle et al., 1996; Chapple, 2011). The petitions also highlight the high value of white shark teeth, jaws, and fins as trophies, curios, and food, stating that this provides a strong monetary incentive to capture and keep white sharks (Clarke, 2004; Shivji et al., 2005; Clarke et al., 2006).
        We conclude that the petitions and information in our files present evidence that fisheries impacts continue to affect white shark populations worldwide and in the NEP, primarily due to incidental capture in fisheries and the potential for the high value of great white shark teeth, jaws, and fins to promote keeping incidentally caught individuals rather than releasing them back into the water. This information suggests that fisheries impacts may be affecting the continued existence of the NEP population of white shark. To further evaluate these effects, more information is needed on fisheries impacts specifically within the range of the NEP population, particularly on the capture of white sharks in fisheries in offshore waters and the lethal and sublethal effects of catch and release.
        Disease or Predation
        The WildEarth Guardians petition asserts that the addition of mercury, organochlorine contaminants, and other pollutants to the ocean and the effects of these pollutants on the NEP population of white sharks may be categorized as disease. The petition does not provide any additional information to support that disease is a factor affecting the NEP population's continued existence such that listing may be warranted. Thus, the available information is insufficient to evaluate if disease may be affecting the continued existence of the NEP population of white shark. The petition more appropriately discusses pollutants and their effects on the NEP population under the habitat degradation and “other natural or manmade” factors.
        Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        The petitions assert that the inadequacy of existing Federal, state, or international regulatory mechanisms require that the NEP population of white shark be listed under the ESA. The petitions contend that although Federal, state, and international regulations exist to protect white sharks from targeted capture in some areas, these regulations are insufficient because white sharks in the NEP population are still vulnerable to incidental capture throughout its range, and to exploitation when in international waters. In addition, the WildEarth Guardians petition states that existing regulations do not protect the NEP population's habitat and health from threats such as habitat degradation, pollution, and overfishing of prey resources.

        Within the United States, Federal and state regulations to protect white sharks vary. Currently, the retention of white sharks in U.S. Federal waters in the Pacific Ocean is prohibited under the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. In California, targeted capture of white sharks is prohibited, but incidentally caught white sharks may be retained under a permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for scientific or educational purposes (14 CCR § 28.06). In Oregon, all white sharks must be released immediately if caught (ODFW, 2012). Washington and Hawaii do not have specific fisheries regulations for white shark. However, both Hawaii and California passed bans making it unlawful to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute shark fins, which may provide some protection for white sharks. The petitions argue that despite these protections, the continued incidental capture and mortality of even small numbers of white sharks in U.S. waters, particularly off California, can have a large impact on the local population, citing a study off the Farallon Islands in which the removal of four white sharks from the area in 1982 resulted in significantly fewer sightings of shark attacks on pinnipeds than expected in 1983 to 1985 (Pyle et al., 1996). The petitions also suggest that illegal fishing may be a problem in the United States, citing cases of illegal fishing and sale of white shark teeth, jaws, and fins in 2003 (CITES, 2004).

        Outside of the United States, protections for white sharks also vary. In Mexico, catch and retention of white sharks and the landing of shark fins without carcasses has been banned since 2006 (Lack and Sant, 2011), although incidental capture continues to occur (Galván-Magaña et al., 2010; Santana-Morales et al., 2012). In Canada, there are no specific regulations to protect white sharks, although a ban on shark finning may provide some protection (DFO, 2007). In international waters, white sharks are protected under CITES (Appendix II) and other international agreements, including the Convention on Migratory Species (Appendix I and II) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the petitions contend that these protections are not sufficient, given continued trade in white shark products due to poaching and variable enforcement of regulations (CITES, 2004; Clarke, 2004; Shivji et al., 2005; Clarke et al., 2006; Galván-Magaña et al., 2010; Jorgensen et al., 2010; Viegas, 2011).
        Based on the information in the petition and in our files as discussed above, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to address threats to the NEP population of white shark. To further evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, more information is needed regarding the level of illegal fishing and poaching in U.S. and international waters.
        Other Natural or Manmade Factors

        The two petitions assert that other natural or manmade factors may be affecting the survival and recovery of the NEP population of white shark, including contaminant loads, negative press, life history factors, small population size, and the synergistic effects of all of the threats facing the population. Both petitions cite a study conducted in the Southern California Bight revealing mercury and organochlorines (e.g., DDT, PCBs, and chlordanes) in the tissues of juvenile white sharks at levels that may result in physiological impairment (Mull et al., 2012). Young white sharks are likely bioaccumulating these contaminants (likely from historical discharges in the Southern California Bight) when feeding on prey resources in the area (Blasius and Goodmanlowe, 2008; Mull et al., 2012). The WildEarth Guardian petition also cites negative media attention as a threat to white sharks, especially when shark attacks on humans occur, because this generates general paranoia and encourages targeting of the species for sport or trophy hunting (IUCN, 2009).

        The WildEarth Guardians petition asserts that natural factors, including the species' life history characteristics and small population size, also increase the extinction risk of the NEP population of white shark, particularly when considered in combination with other threats to the species. The petition states that the species' life history characteristics (e.g., slow growth, late maturation, long-life, long generation time, small litter size, and low reproductive capacity) make it susceptible to extinction when faced with population declines and continuing threats (Withgott and Brennan, 2007). The petition also contends that the small estimated population size (e.g., approximately 340 subadults and adults in the NEP population; Chapple et al., 2011; Sosa-Nishizaki et al., 2012) makes the population highly susceptible to extinction due to a stochastic event (Brook et al., 2008). We note, however, that this estimate of abundance is based on studies of individuals surveyed in aggregation sites off central California and Guadalupe Island, and do not include YOY and juveniles. Also, without information on the historical abundance of the NEP population, it is difficult to assess what this estimated population size means for the persistence of the population. The low estimated abundance of the population may be the result of anthropogenic pressures on the population or a naturally low carrying capacity (the NEP population is thought to have been established by a limited number of founders from the ANZ population; Jorgensen et al., 2010) (Chapple et al., 2011). Catch ratios of white sharks to all shark species off the U.S. west coast from 1965 (1:67) to 1983 (1:210) suggest a potential decline in abundance (Casey and Pratt, 1985, cited in Fowler et al., 2005). However, recent increases in the incidental capture of white sharks in gillnet fisheries off California, despite stable or decreasing fishing effort, suggest that the population may be increasing (Lowe et al., 2012). In addition, an increased frequency of observed white shark attacks on pinnipeds off the South Farallon Islands over time indicates an increase in the shark population at the islands (Pyle et al., 1996; Pyle et al., 2003). Thus, it is difficult at this time to determine population trends and to evaluate how the estimated size of the NEP population relates to the population's extinction risk.
        Overall, the petition and information in our files suggest that effects from bioaccumulation of contaminants and negative media attention, coupled with the life history characteristics of white sharks, may be affecting the survival and recovery of the NEP population. More specific information is needed, however, to assess population trends and to evaluate the population's estimated abundance in terms of the potential effects on the population's survival and recovery.
        Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors
        We conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that multiple section 4(a)(1) factors, as discussed above, may be causing or contributing to an increased risk of extinction for the NEP population of white shark.
        Petition Finding
        After reviewing the information contained in both petitions, as well as information readily available in our files, we conclude the petitions present substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action of listing the NEP population of white shark as a threatened or endangered DPS may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will commence a status review of the species. During the status review, we will determine whether the population identified by the petitioners meets the DPS policy's criteria, and if so, whether the population is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so within the foreseeable future (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We now initiate this review, and thus, the northeastern Pacific Ocean population of white shark is considered to be a candidate species (50 CFR 424.15(b)). Within 12 months of the receipt of the WildEarth Guardians petition (June 25, 2013), we will make a finding as to whether listing the species as endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing the species is warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.
        Information Solicited

        To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the NEP Ocean population of white sharks is a DPS and whether it is threatened or endangered. Specifically, we are soliciting published and unpublished information in the following areas: (1) Population structure information in the Pacific Ocean, such as genetics data; particularly any unpublished information; (2) migratory and behavior patterns in the NEP Ocean, particularly any unpublished information; (3) life history and ecology, particularly any unpublished information; (4) historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout the NEP Ocean; (5) historical and current population trends in the NEP Ocean; (6) historical and current data on commercial and recreational fisheries directed at white sharks in the NEP Ocean, including Mexican waters; (7) historical and current data on white shark bycatch and retention in commercial and recreational fisheries in the NEP Ocean, including Mexican waters; (8) data on the trade of white shark products, including fins, jaws, and teeth in the NEP Ocean, including Mexico; (9) data or other information on encounter rates with white sharks through ecotourism operations and sightings data, and long-term records of white shark attacks, wounds or scaring of marine mammals; (10) adverse impacts related to coastal habitat degradation and the health of white sharks, including, but not limited to, impacts related to discharge of pollutants, marine debris, or ocean acidification; (11) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (12) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats; and (12) management, regulatory, and enforcement information.
        We also request information on critical habitat for the NEP Ocean population of white sharks. Specifically, we request information on the physical and biological habitat features that are essential to the conservation of the species and identification of habitat areas that include these essential physical and biological features. Essential features include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and development of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12). For habitat areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, we request information describing: (1) The activities that affect the habitat areas or could be affected by the designation; and (2) the economic impacts, impacts to national security, or other relevant impacts of additional requirements of management measures likely to result from the designation.
        We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, raw data with associated documentation, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, mailing address, email address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references is available upon request from the NMFS Southwest Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

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

          Dated: September 25, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-23963 Filed 9-27-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [Docket No. 191022-0068]
        RIN 0648-BJ31
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Regulatory Amendment 30

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 30 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). For red grouper, this proposed rule would modify the spawning season closures for the commercial and recreational sectors in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off North Carolina and South Carolina and establish a commercial trip limit. Additionally, Regulatory Amendment 30 would revise the rebuilding schedule for red grouper. The purpose of this proposed rule and Regulatory Amendment 30 is to modify the rebuilding schedule and extend protections for red grouper.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by November 29, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2019-0117,” by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2019-0117, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            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), 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 required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 30 may be obtained from www.regulations.gov or the Southeast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/regulatory-amendment-30-red-grouper-rebuilding-plan. Regulatory Amendment 30 includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: mary.vara@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region is managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP and includes red grouper, among other snapper-grouper species. The Snapper-Grouper FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background
        In 2010, a Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) benchmark assessment (SEDAR 19, 2010) was completed for South Atlantic red grouper. Based on the results of SEDAR 19, NMFS determined that red grouper was overfished and undergoing overfishing. Amendment 24 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP established a 10-year rebuilding plan that began in 2011, with an end date of 2020 (77 FR 34254; June 11, 2012). Management measures implemented through Amendment 24 modified red grouper commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACLs), and sector-specific accountability measures (AMs). Amendment 24 also removed the combined gag, black grouper, and red grouper commercial quota as well as the commercial and recreational ACLs and AMs.

        A stock assessment update (SEDAR 53) for red grouper was completed in February 2017 using data through 2015. SEDAR 53 indicated the stock was still overfished and undergoing overfishing, and that stock rebuilding would not be possible by 2020, which is the terminal year of the current rebuilding plan. Therefore, on September 27, 2017, NMFS sent a letter to the Council stating that the South Atlantic red grouper stock was overfished and undergoing overfishing and not making adequate progress towards rebuilding. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the implementation of management measures to end overfishing immediately and revise or implement a rebuilding plan within 2 years of notification by NMFS to the Council of this stock status. NMFS implemented actions in Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1 to the FMP on August 27, 2018 (83 FR 35435), to immediately end overfishing of red grouper by reducing the total, commercial, and recreational ACLs based on the acceptable biological catch recommendation from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee.
        Continued harvest at the levels specified in Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1 is expected to allow for rebuilding the red grouper stock within 10 years, but because the stock is not projected to fully rebuild by 2020 (SEDAR 53), the Council must revise the current rebuilding plan so the stock rebuilds in the timeframe mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Regulatory Amendment 30 addresses the proposed revision to the rebuilding plan and is discussed below.
        The proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 30 would extend the red grouper spawning season prohibition for the commercial and recreational sectors in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina in response to stakeholder concerns that red grouper are often found in spawning condition past the January through April shallow-water grouper spawning season closure, particularly in May. The proposed rule also establishes a commercial trip limit for red grouper to help rebuild the stock and discourage direct fishing for the species.
        Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
        For red grouper, this proposed rule would modify the spawning season closure for the commercial and recreational sectors in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina, and establish a commercial trip limit.
        Commercial and Recreational Spawning Season Closure
        Currently, the commercial and recreational spawning season closure for shallow-water groupers, which includes red grouper, is January through April each year throughout the South Atlantic EEZ. In the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina, red grouper spawning occurs during February through June and peaks in April. This proposed rule would extend the January through April spawning season closure for red grouper through May in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina for both the commercial and recreational sectors.
        This action was developed in response to stakeholder concerns that red grouper are often found in spawning condition past the January through April shallow-water grouper spawning season closure, particularly in May, in the EEZ off North Carolina and South Carolina. The Council did not propose a similar May closure for the EEZ off Georgia or Florida in Regulatory Amendment 30 based on stakeholder feedback that red grouper spawn earlier in the year in the southern part of the Council's jurisdiction. Additionally, the Council noted that there are minimal landings of red grouper in Georgia, which would preclude the need to extend the closure past April in the EEZ off that state. This proposed rule would also extend the prohibition on commercial sale and purchase of red grouper in the EEZ off South Carolina and North Carolina from January through May as part of the revised spawning season closure.
        Commercial Trip Limit
        There is currently no commercial trip limit for red grouper in the South Atlantic. This proposed rule would establish a commercial trip limit for red grouper harvested in the South Atlantic EEZ of 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight. The Council determined that the proposed trip limit would help to rebuild the red grouper stock by discouraging directed commercial fishing for the species. However, the proposed trip limit would likely not substantially reduce the current level of commercial harvest of red grouper as the majority of trips historically have landed less than 200 lb (91 kg) of red grouper. The trip limit would minimize adverse socio-economic effects by allowing fishers to retain red grouper caught incidentally when fishing for other snapper-grouper species. The Council selected a commercial trip limit that in combination with extending the spawning season closure for red grouper off North Carolina and South Carolina would constrain harvest to help rebuild the stock. Further, the Council chose a trip limit that was large enough to allow fishers for whom red grouper are an important species (such as those in South Florida and the Florida Keys) to maintain some trip profitability.
        Measures in Regulatory Amendment 30 Not Codified in This Proposed Rule
        The Council selected a 10-year rebuilding plan for red grouper in Regulatory Amendment 30, which is the maximum allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and would begin in 2019 (Year 1) and end in 2028 (Year 10). The Council determined that a longer time period for red grouper to rebuild would better accommodate the uncertainty relative to recruitment and stock productivity. As described in Regulatory Amendment 30, the red grouper stock has been experiencing multiple years of low recruitment (as evidenced by the SEDAR 53 stock assessment), and the lack of stock rebuilding progress may largely be due to ecosystem-related factors.
        Implementation of reduced total and sector ACLs beginning in 2018, which was specified in Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1, is expected to end overfishing of South Atlantic red grouper. Given that poor recruitment appears to be the primary factor currently affecting stock rebuilding, and the projections upon which the rebuilding schedules alternatives in Regulatory Amendment 30 are based assumed long-term average recruitment, the Council selected the alternative for the longest rebuilding schedule (10 years) to account for the possibility that future recruitment might be lower than assumed in the projections.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Snapper-Grouper FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

        NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the RFA, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this proposed rule and its purpose and need are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.
        The rule concerns commercial and recreational fishing for red grouper in Federal waters of the South Atlantic. It directly effects both anglers (recreational fishers) and commercial fishing businesses that harvest red grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ.
        Anglers are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from for-hire fishing, private, or leased vessels. Therefore, neither estimates of the number of anglers nor the impacts on them are required or provided in this analysis.
        Any business that operates a commercial fishing vessel that harvests red grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ must have a valid Federal snapper-grouper permit attached to that vessel.
        From 2013 through 2017, an annual average of 225 commercially permitted vessels reported landings of red grouper. That annual average declined to 210 from 2015 through 2017. Those two annual averages are used to estimate the range of vessels. NMFS expects all of the businesses with the 210 to 225 vessels operate primarily in the commercial fishing industry. For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. The average annual total revenue for a vessel that lands red grouper is substantially less than that. Moreover, none of the permitted vessels that landed red grouper had annual revenue close to or greater than $11 million. Hence, all of the businesses that operate permitted vessels that land red grouper are small.
        This rule would not impose additional reporting or record-keeping requirements on small businesses. The action in Regulatory Amendment 30 to change the rebuilding schedule would have an indirect impact on small businesses but that impact is dependent on subsequent actions. The action to revise the seasonal closure for the recreational sector would have a direct impact on anglers, but as explained previously, anglers are not small entities.
        The action to revise the seasonal closure for the commercial sector would add the month of May to the current January through April prohibition on fishing for and possession of red grouper in Federal waters off North Carolina and South Carolina. That additional month would eliminate from 6,956 lb (3,155 kg), gutted weight, to 12,477 lb (6,660 kg), gutted weight, of red grouper commercially landed in May, and the average annual loss per Carolina vessel that lands red grouper in May would range from 141 lb (64 kg), gutted weight, to 210 lb (95 kg), gutted weight, and from $649 to $977 (2017 dollars). However, when differentiated by state, the action would reduce the average North Carolina vessel's annual revenue by $497 to $649 (2017 dollars) (1.3 percent to 1.8 percent) and reduce the average South Carolina vessel's annual revenue by $713 to $977 (2017 dollars) (0.6 percent to 0.7 percent).
        Finally, the last action would establish a 200-lb (91 kg), gutted weight, commercial trip limit in Federal waters of the South Atlantic in effect when fishing is allowed. From 2013 through 2017, an annual average of nine vessels landed more than 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight, of red grouper in North Carolina and South Carolina from June through December. Those nine vessels represent from 9.7 percent to 11.9 percent of the vessels that land red grouper annually in North Carolina and South Carolina. The proposed trip limit would reduce average landings by 107-117 lb (49-53 kg), gutted weight, per trip and average dockside revenue from $498 to $538 (2017 dollars). Those losses represent less than 1 percent of average annual revenues for North Carolina and South Carolina vessels.
        An annual average of three vessels make seven trips that land more than 200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight, of red grouper in Georgia and Florida from May through December. Those three Florida/Georgia vessels represent from 2.1 percent to 2.2 percent of permitted vessels that land red grouper in Georgia and Florida annually. NMFS estimates that each of the three vessels would lose from $3,441 to $3,471 (2017 dollars) in dockside revenue annually. Those figures represent from 6.5 percent to 6.6 percent of the average Florida/Georgia vessel's dockside revenue from all landings; however, the three vessels have annual revenues substantially greater than the average for the 134 to 143 Florida/Georgia vessels that land red grouper annually.
        NMFS concludes this rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small commercial fishing businesses that operate federally permitted fishing vessels that harvest red grouper from the South Atlantic EEZ.

        Four alternatives to adding May to the current 4-month January through April prohibition on fishing for or possessing red grouper in Federal waters off North Carolina and South Carolina were considered, but were not selected. The first alternative, the status quo, would have no impact on small businesses. Two non-selected alternatives would change the timing of the 4-month prohibition: From either February through May or March through June. A prohibition from February through May would have a smaller adverse impact than the selected alternative; however, it would have a smaller beneficial impact on the stock because snapper-grouper fishing off North Carolina and South Carolina is at its lowest from January through March. A March through June prohibition would extend into the red grouper season that is in Federal waters off North Carolina and off South Carolina, and its adverse impact would be larger than the selected alternative. The fourth non-selected alternative would establish a 6-month prohibition that would have the largest adverse economic impact of all alternatives.

        Four alternatives to a 200-lb (91-kg), gutted weight, trip limit were considered, but were not selected. In addition to the status quo of no commercial trip limit, three other alternatives would have established smaller trip limits. Those three alternatives would have a larger adverse economic impact than the selected alternative.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
          Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Red grouper, Seasonal prohibition, South Atlantic, Trip limits.

          Dated: October 22, 2019.
          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 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

        1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 622.183, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

          § 622.183
          Area and seasonal closures.

          (b) * * *
          (1) Seasonal closure of the commercial and recreational sectors for gag and associated grouper species. During January through April each year, no person may fish for, harvest, or possess in or from the South Atlantic EEZ any South Atlantic shallow-water grouper (SASWG): Gag, black grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby, and coney. For a person on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, these prohibitions against fishing, harvesting, or possessing apply in the South Atlantic, i.e., in state or Federal waters. Additionally, in the month of May, no person may fish for, harvest, or possess any South Atlantic red grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ off North Carolina or off South Carolina. For a person on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, these prohibitions against fishing, harvesting, or possessing red grouper in May apply in state waters off North Carolina and off South Carolina.

        3. In § 622.191, add paragraph (a)(14) to read as follows:

          § 622.191
          Commercial trip limits.
          (a) * * *
          (14) Red grouper. Until the commercial ACL specified in § 622.193(d)(1)(iii) is reached—200 lb (91 kg), gutted weight; 236 lb (107 kg), round weight. See § 622.193(d)(1) for the limitations regarding red grouper after the commercial ACL is reached.

        4. In § 622.192, revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:

          § 622.192
          Restrictions on sale/purchase.

          (h) During January through April, no person may sell or purchase a gag, black grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby, or coney harvested from or possessed in the South Atlantic EEZ or, if harvested or possessed by a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, harvested from the South Atlantic, i.e., in state or Federal waters. Additionally, in the month of May, no person may sell or purchase South Atlantic red grouper harvested from or possessed in the South Atlantic EEZ off North Carolina or off South Carolina, or, if harvested or possessed by a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, harvested in or from the EEZ or state waters off North Carolina or off South Carolina. The prohibitions on sale and purchase during January through May do not apply to such species that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to January 1 and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. These prohibitions also do not apply to a dealer's purchase or sale of such species harvested from an area other than the South Atlantic, provided such fish are accompanied by documentation of harvest outside the South Atlantic. The requirements for such documentation are specified in paragraph (i) of this section.

      [FR Doc. 2019-23437 Filed 10-28-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Federal Emergency Management Agency
        44 CFR Part 67
        [Docket No. FEMA-B-7786]
        Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

          AGENCY:
          Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings.

          DATES:
          Comments are to be submitted on or before September 18, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

          You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7786, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3151, or (e-mail) bill.blanton@dhs.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3151 or (e-mail) bill.blanton@dhs.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
        These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
        Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.

          Administrative Procedure Act Statement. This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and do not fall under the APA.

          National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

          Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

          Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.

          Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

          Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

          List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
          Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 67—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

            § 67.4
            [Amended]
            2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:

                Flooding source(s)
                Location of referenced elevation **
                * Elevation in feet (NGVD)
                  + Elevation in feet
                  (NAVD)
                  # Depth in feet
                  above ground

                Effective
                Modified
                Communities affected

                  Lauderdale County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas

                Tennessee River (Navigation Channel)
                Approximately 981 feet upstream of the intersection of Sweetwater Creek and XS B of Tennessee River
                +431
                +432
                City of Florence.

                Approximately 2238 feet upstream of the intersection of Tennessee River and XS D of Tennessee River
                +431
                +435

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Florence

                Maps are available for inspection at 110 West College Street, Florence, AL 35630.

                  Leavenworth County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas

                Stranger Creek
                At Highway 32
                +798
                +796
                Unincorporated Areas of Leavenworth County, City of Easton, City of Linwood.

                At Tonganoxie Road
                None
                +842

                At Millwood Road
                None
                +914

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  City of Easton

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 300 W. Riley, Easton, KS 66020.

                  City of Linwood

                Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 306 Main Street, Linwood, KS 66052.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Leavenworth County

                Maps are available for inspection at Leavenworth County Courthouse, 4th and Walnut, Leavenworth, KS 66048.

                  Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas

                Gulf of Mexico
                Base Flood Elevation changes ranging from 10 to 13 feet in the form of AE and VE zones have been made
                +11
                +10-13
                Town of Erath.

                Gulf of Mexico
                Base Flood Elevation changes ranging from 9 to 11 feet in the form of AE and VE zones have been made
                +9-11
                +9-11
                Town of Delcambre.

                Gulf of Mexico
                Base Flood Elevation changes of 7 feet in the form of VE zones have been made
                None
                +7
                Town of Gueydan.

                Gulf of Mexico
                Base Flood Elevations changes ranging from 11 to 18 feet in the form of AE and VE zones have been made
                +11-19
                +11-18
                Unincorporated Areas of Vermilion Parish.

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Town of Erath

                Maps are available for inspection at 115 West Edwards Street, Erath, LA 70533.

                  Town of Delcambre

                Maps are available for inspection at 107 North Railroad, Delcambre, LA 70528.

                  Town of Gueydan

                Maps are available for inspection at 600 Main Street, Gueydan, LA 70542.

                  Unincorporated Areas of Vermilion Parish

                Maps are available for inspection at 100 N. State Street, Suite 200, Abbeville, LA 70510.

                  Bristol County, Massachusetts, and Incorporated Areas

                Buzzards Bay
                Approximately 1,650 feet East of intersection of River Road and Redwing Lane
                +13
                +24
                Town of Dartmouth, Town of Westport.

                Approximately 875 feet south from end of Club House Drive
                +31
                +24

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Town of Dartmouth

                Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 400 Slocum Road, Dartmouth, MA 02747.

                  Town of Westport

                Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 816 Main Road, Westport, MA 02790.

                  Plymouth County, Massachusetts, and Incorporated Areas

                Atlantic Ocean
                Approximately 150 feet south of intersection of Brant Beach Avenue and Ocean View Avenue
                +17
                +19
                Town of Hull, Town of Mattapoisett.

                Approximately 210 feet southeast of intersection of Highland Avenue and Mount Pleasant Way
                +9
                +33

                * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

                + North American Vertical Datum.

                # Depth in feet above ground.

                ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

                Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                  ADDRESSES

                  Town of Hull

                Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 253 Atlantic Avenue, Hull, MA 02045.

                  Town of Mattapoisett

                Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 16 Main Street, Mattapoisett, MA 02739.

              (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)

            Dated: June 10, 2008.
            David I. Maurstad,
            Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program,  Department of Homeland Security,  Federal Emergency Management Agency.

       [FR Doc. E8-13932 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-12-P