Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Great Hammerhead Shark as a Threatened or Endangered Species, 67451-67457 [2022-24306]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67451-67457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 221031-0228; RTID 0648-XR125]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 
To List Great Hammerhead Shark as a Threatened or Endangered Species

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

ACTION: Notice; 90-Day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the 
great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) as threatened or endangered 
under the

[[Page 67452]]

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat. We find 
that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available 
from the NMFS website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/negative-90-day-findings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, (301) 427-8457, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 16, 2022, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the great hammerhead shark as a 
threatened or endangered species under the ESA and to designate 
critical habitat concurrent with the listing. We have previously 
reviewed the status of the great hammerhead shark for listing under the 
ESA as a result of two petitions received in 2012 and 2013. We 
completed a comprehensive status review of the great hammerhead shark 
in response to these petitions, and based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available, including the status review report 
(Miller et al. 2014), we determined that the species was not comprised 
of distinct population segments (DPSs), was not currently in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
was not likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, 
on June 11, 2014, we published a final determination, the 12-month 
finding, that the great hammerhead shark did not warrant ESA listing 
(79 FR 33509).

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 makes a finding on whether that 
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly 
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). 
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information 
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a 
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a 
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will 
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a 
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted 
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review that encompasses all 
the best data available, as compared to the narrower scope of review at 
the 90-day stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the 
outcome of the status review.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which 
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, 
any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint 
NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (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 
(ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and 
(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we 
determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one 
or a combination of the following section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified 
threats; (5) or any other natural or manmade factors affecting the 
species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by the Services (50 CFR 
424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial 
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, 
or reclassify a species as credible scientific or commercial 
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable 
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that 
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn 
in the petition without the support of credible scientific or 
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial 
information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the 
petition, we will consider the information described in sections 50 CFR 
424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable) and may also consider 
information readily available at the time the determination is made (50 
CFR 424.19(h)(ii)).
    Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the 
petition includes the following types of information: (1) current 
population status and trends and estimates of current population sizes 
and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if available; (2) 
identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may 
affect the species and where these factors are acting upon the species; 
(3) whether and to what extent any or all of the factors identified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, alone or in combination, may cause the 
species to be an endangered species or threatened species (i.e., the 
species is currently in danger of extinction or is likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how high in magnitude and 
how imminent the threats to the species and its habitat are; (4) 
adequacy of regulatory protections and effectiveness of conservation 
activities by States as well as other parties, that have been initiated 
or that are ongoing, that may protect the species or its habitat; and 
(5) a complete, balanced representation of the relevant facts, 
including information that may contradict claims in the petition (50 
CFR 424.14(d)).
    We may also consider information readily available at the time the 
determination is made (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(ii)). We are not required to 
consider any supporting materials cited by the petitioner if the 
petitioner does not provide electronic or hard copies, to the extent 
permitted by U.S. copyright law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations 
from those materials (e.g., publications, maps, reports, letters from 
authorities) (50 CFR 424.14(c)(6)).
    The ``substantial scientific or commercial information'' standard 
must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made 
on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the 
petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, 
the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition 
or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received 
thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to

[[Page 67453]]

determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial 
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the 
petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where 
the prior review resulted in a final agency action--such as a final 
listing determination, 90-day not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-
warranted finding--a petition will generally not be considered to 
present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted unless the petition 
provides new information or analysis not previously considered (50 CFR 
424.14(h)(1)(iii)).
    At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research, 
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to 
help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' 
sources and characterizations of the information presented if they 
appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have 
specific information in our files that indicates the petition's 
information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant 
to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than 
one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available 
information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long 
as it is reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial 
scientific review would conclude it supports the petitioners' 
assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the 
species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to 
make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of 
specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a 
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would 
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may 
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we first 
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating the subject of the petition may 
constitute a ``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA. If so, we 
evaluate whether the information indicates that the species may face an 
extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or reclassification may 
be warranted; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing 
the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts 
and threats to the species. We evaluate whether the petition presents 
any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating 
extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, 
productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, 
current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and 
the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to 
extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate whether the petition 
presents information suggesting potential links between these 
demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in 
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
    Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to 
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these 
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species 
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad 
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification 
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute 
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We 
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species 
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a 
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that 
negative response.
    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by 
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will 
not provide a sufficient rationale for a positive 90-day finding under 
the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of 
a species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by 
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because 
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories). Additionally, species classifications 
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria 
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not 
necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, 
we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is 
based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or 
threats discussed above.

Analysis of Petition

    We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the 
petition, and other literature and information readily available in our 
files. The petitioners mainly assert that the recent 2019 IUCN 
assessment of the great hammerhead shark (Rigby et al. 2019), which 
designated the global species as ``critically endangered,'' means that 
the species satisfies the listing criteria under the ESA.
    As discussed above, we must evaluate any petition seeking to list a 
species in light of any prior reviews or findings we have already made 
on the species that is the subject of the petition (50 CFR 
424.14(h)(1)(iii)). Because our previous review resulted in a final 
agency action finding that the great hammerhead shark was not in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
was not likely to become so within the foreseeable future, we 
considered whether the petition provides new information or a new 
analysis not previously considered. Unless the petition provides 
credible new information, identifies errors, or provides a credible new 
analysis, the petition generally would not be considered to present 
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii)). Below, we address the main points 
made in the petition, including the information used by the 2019 IUCN 
assessment (Rigby et al. 2019), and discuss whether this information 
was considered in our status review report (Miller et al. 2014) and 12-
month finding for the great hammerhead shark (79 FR 33509, June 11, 
2014), or instead is credible new information.

Population Status and Trends

    The petitioner discusses the 2019 IUCN assessment of the great 
hammerhead population (Rigby et al. 2019), stating that the assessment 
found a global population reduction of >80 percent over three 
generation lengths (71.1-74.4 years), with particularly steep declines 
in the Indian Ocean (median reduction of 99.3 percent over three 
generation lengths). There were three data sources that the IUCN 
assessment used to determine the overall global population reduction. 
Two of these data sources, the Indian Ocean data (Dudley and 
Simpfendorfer 2006) and the North Atlantic data (Jiao

[[Page 67454]]

et al. 2011) were both analyzed in our great hammerhead shark status 
review report (Miller et al. 2014) that preceded and provided the basis 
for the 2014 finding. As such, this is not new information that would 
indicate a change in the status of the species. The third data source 
in the IUCN assessment (J. Carlson unpublished data), which was not 
considered in our status review report, provided new and additional 
North Atlantic information that showed an increase in median population 
change of great hammerhead sharks over three generation lengths. As 
such, that data supported classification of the great hammerhead shark 
in the IUCN Red List category of Least Concern (see Rigby et al. 2019: 
Supplementary Information) and does not constitute new information that 
would indicate the petitioned action may be warranted. Additionally, 
NMFS is currently undertaking a stock assessment for the great 
hammerhead shark in U.S. Atlantic waters as part of the SouthEast Data, 
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) cooperative process for hammerhead 
sharks. Based on the SEDAR Workshop Working Papers (publicly available 
at: https://sedarweb.org/assessments/sedar-77), a preliminary 
examination of trends in abundance from five data sources, including 
the ones in Rigby et al. (2019), indicates that since 1994 the 
population is increasing at about 2 percent per year.
    The petition also noted steep declines of hammerheads in the 
Mediterranean Sea, referencing Ferretti et al. (2008); however, again, 
this study was considered in our status review report of the great 
hammerhead shark (Miller et al. 2014). Within the status review report, 
we noted that although Ferretti et al. (2008) has been referenced as a 
study that estimated a decline of >99.99 percent in Sphyrna spp. 
abundance and biomass, the authors acknowledge that they could only 
assess S. zygaena, or smooth hammerhead shark. Great hammerhead sharks 
are essentially rare in the Mediterranean Sea and are considered a 
transient species (Miller et al. 2014). As such, the information that 
the petition provided does not apply to the great hammerhead shark 
species.
    In conclusion, information readily available in our files suggests 
the great hammerhead shark population is increasing in the U.S. 
Atlantic region, which provides important context for judging the 
accuracy and reliability of the information presented in the petition. 
Further, the petition does not provide any credible new information 
that was not already considered in our great hammerhead shark status 
review report (Miller et al. 2014) supporting the prior not warranted 
finding or otherwise offer substantial information that would suggest 
that the species' current population status and trends may warrant the 
petitioned action.

Information on Impacts and Threats to the Species

    Next, we evaluated whether the information in the petition, viewed 
in context of information readily available in our files concerning the 
extent and severity of one or more of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, 
credibly suggests these impacts and threats may be posing a risk of 
extinction for the great hammerhead shark. The petition states that 
four of the five general causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 
are adversely affecting the continued existence of the great hammerhead 
shark: (A) present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (D) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. In the following sections, 
we use the information presented in the petition and in our files to 
determine whether the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

    First, the petition incorrectly identifies the great hammerhead 
shark as a ``benthopelagic'' species, not a coastal-pelagic and semi-
oceanic species (79 FR 33509, June 11, 2014). The petition states that 
as a benthopelagic species, the great hammerhead shark occupies most of 
the water column and is vulnerable to human activities from the surface 
to the seafloor. The petition cites the reference of Thoburn et al. 
(2019) to support that statement; however, this reference is about tope 
sharks (Galeorhinus galeaus), not great hammerhead sharks. The petition 
also states that great hammerhead sharks are considered highly 
susceptible to anthropogenic pressures near coastlines and in offshore 
environments but references Leonetti et al. (2020), which also mentions 
tope sharks and is about sharks and rays in the Mediterranean. As 
mentioned above, great hammerhead sharks are rare or a transient 
species in the Mediterranean, and the petition contains no information 
that suggests that the great hammerhead shark is similar to the species 
analyzed in Leonetti et al. (2020) nor supports an inference that the 
great hammerhead shark specifically is ``highly susceptible'' to 
unspecified anthropogenic pressures near coastlines or in offshore 
environments of the Mediterranean or anywhere else. Therefore the 
petition statements are not supported by credible scientific or 
commercial information. Such unsupported conclusions are not considered 
``substantial information'' under our regulations (50 CFR 
424.14(h)(1)(i)).
    The petition also states that climate change and coastal 
development are especially harmful to the great hammerhead shark given 
the species' dependence on tropical and sub-tropical coral reefs; 
however, as noted in our great hammerhead shark status review report 
(Miller et al. 2014), great hammerhead sharks do not show any 
dependence on coral reefs. The petition also did not provide any 
reference for that statement. The petition proceeds to suggest that 
global climate change, ocean warming, ocean acidification, habitat 
degradation and destruction associated with coastal and ocean 
development, and human-caused impacts on important coral reef habitats 
are putting the great hammerhead shark at a greater risk of extinction. 
However, the petition fails to provide any species-specific information 
on the impacts of these developments on the great hammerhead shark. The 
petition mentions that both ocean warming and ocean acidification are 
wreaking havoc on reef ecosystems worldwide and threatening coral reef 
habitats, including those that purportedly provide important habitat 
for great hammerhead sharks, but does not provide any references that 
discuss or identify the specific great hammerhead shark habitat that 
may be impacted. As mentioned in our great hammerhead shark status 
review report (Miller et al. 2014), the great hammerhead shark is a 
circumtropical species that lives in coastal-pelagic and semi-oceanic 
waters from latitudes of 40[deg] N to 31[deg] S. It occurs over 
continental shelves as well as adjacent deep waters, and while it may 
also be found in coral reefs and lagoons, there is no information 
presented in the petition that suggests, contrary to the prior status 
review report, that reef ecosystems worldwide are important habitats 
for the species.
    The petition also states that ocean acidification threatens the 
great hammerhead shark directly but provides no references or 
scientific evidence that supports this statement. Rather, the petition 
cites Dixson et al. (2014), Rosa et al. (2017), Piestevos et al. (2015) 
and Dziergwa et al. (2019), which are studies that examine the effects 
of ocean acidification on different species of sharks, but not the 
great hammerhead

[[Page 67455]]

shark. Dixson et al. (2014) examined the smooth dogfish (Mustelus 
canis), Rosa et al. (2017) examined 10 benthic shark species, Piestevos 
et al. (2015) examined the temperate Port Jackson shark (Heterodontus 
portusjacksoni), and Dziergwa et al. (2019) examined a demersal shark 
species, Puffadder shyshark (Haploblepharus edwardsii). Clearly, none 
of these shark species (which are demersal, benthic, and temperate) 
share similar habitat conditions as the great hammerhead shark, a 
coastal-pelagic and semi-oceanic shark. Additionally, none of the 
referenced papers suggest the shark species discussed are biologically 
similar to the great hammerhead shark. The status review report, on the 
other hand, discussed a paper (Chin et al. 2010) that examined climate 
change factors, including ocean acidification, on great hammerhead 
sharks on Australia's Great Barrier Reef, and found that great 
hammerhead sharks were ranked as having a low overall vulnerability to 
climate change, with low vulnerability to each of the assessed climate 
change factors, including ocean acidification (Miller et al. 2014). As 
such, the referenced studies do not constitute substantial information 
to support the petition's statement regarding the threat of ocean 
acidification to the great hammerhead shark species.
    The petition also claims that habitat degradation and destruction 
associated with coastal and ocean development, specifically the 
placement of high voltage subsea cables, threatens the great hammerhead 
shark with extinction. This information appears to have been copied 
from a separate petition (pertaining to the tope shark) and does not 
provide any evidence of high voltage direct current subsea cables 
negatively impacting the great hammerhead shark. The petition 
references the IUCN tope shark assessment (Walker et al. 2020), which 
does not mention great hammerhead shark impacts from any subsea cables, 
and also references Taormina et al. (2018) and Carter et al. (2009), 
neither of which addresses great hammerhead shark impacts.
    Overall, the petition fails to present credible, accurate 
information to constitute substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to the 
great hammerhead shark.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petition relies solely on the IUCN assessment of the great 
hammerhead shark (Rigby et al. 2019), specifically the global 
population reduction, as support for its statement that dramatic 
declines of the species around the world are evidence that 
overexploitation is a threat posed to the species. However, the 
petition does not provide any new information specific to the species 
that was not already considered in our great hammerhead shark status 
review report (Miller et al. 2014). As stated above, there were only 
three data sources that the IUCN assessment used to determine the 
overall global population reduction, and two of these data sources, the 
Indian Ocean data (Dudley and Simpfendorfer 2006) and one for the North 
Atlantic (Jiao et al. 2011) were both analyzed in our great hammerhead 
status review report (Miller et al. 2014). The third data source, which 
was not considered in the status review report (J. Carlson unpublished 
data; see Rigby et al. 2019: Supplementary Information), actually 
showed an increase in median population change of great hammerhead 
sharks, over three generation lengths, in the North Atlantic. As such, 
this supports our conclusion from the 12-month finding (79 FR 33509, 
June 11, 2014) that there is no evidence that overutilization, by 
itself, is a threat that is currently placing the species at an 
increased risk of extinction. The severity of the threat of 
overutilization is dependent upon other risks and threats to the 
species, such as its abundance (as a demographic risk) as well as its 
level of protection from fishing mortality throughout its range; 
however, the petition does not provide any credible new information or 
otherwise offer substantial scientific or commercial information 
suggesting the species is at or near a level of abundance that places 
its current or future persistence at risk due to overutilization. 
Therefore, we conclude the petition does not present substantial 
scientific information indicating that listing may be warranted due to 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petition states that current conservation regulations are 
ineffective to ensure the survival of the great hammerhead shark, yet 
does not provide any reference or new evidence of the ineffectiveness 
of current regulatory mechanisms. The petition mentions many of the 
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) (i.e., 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
(ICCAT), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Western and Central 
Pacific Fisheries Commission, and General Fisheries Commission for the 
Mediterranean) and their implementation of prohibitions, the 
designation of great hammerhead sharks as a priority for conservation 
and management, as well as the defeat of proposals to ban hammerhead 
landings or set fishing limits. The petition also mentions the addition 
of great hammerhead sharks to Appendix II of the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 
However, these conservation regulations were also evaluated in our 
great hammerhead shark status review report (Miller et al. 2014) and 
12-month finding (79 FR 33509, June 11, 2014). The petition also states 
that the ICCAT adopted the recommendation prohibiting retention, 
transshipment, landing, and sale of great hammerheads (and other 
hammerhead species) for ICCAT fisheries operating in the Convention 
Area, but it has not prevented the continued decline of the species in 
the Convention Area. However, as mentioned previously, this statement 
is not supported. Moreover, the petition did not provide any evidence 
of a decline, and the IUCN assessment of great hammerhead sharks (Rigby 
et al. 2019) actually showed a potential increase in median population 
change of great hammerhead sharks over three generation lengths in the 
North Atlantic (J. Carlson unpublished data), which is part of the 
ICCAT Convention Area.
    The petition proceeds to state that national regulations are also 
inadequate to protect the great hammerhead shark from extinction; 
however, again, the petition does not provide any evidence of the 
ineffectiveness of current regulatory mechanisms affecting the great 
hammerhead shark's status or provide new information that was not 
already considered in our great hammerhead shark status review report 
(Miller et al. 2014) and 12-month finding (79 FR 33509, June 11, 2014). 
In terms of our national regulations, and as stated in the 12-month 
finding (79 FR 33509, June 11, 2014), we found that U.S. conservation 
and management measures are adequate in decreasing the extinction risk 
of the great hammerhead shark by minimizing demographic risks 
(preventing further abundance declines) and the threat of 
overutilization (strictly

[[Page 67456]]

managing and monitoring sustainable catch rates) currently and in the 
foreseeable future. This has been further confirmed by new information 
in our files, which, as mentioned above, shows that our preliminary 
examination of great hammerhead shark trends in abundance in the U.S. 
Atlantic indicates that since 1994 the population is increasing at 
about 2 percent per year (https://sedarweb.org/assessments/sedar-77/).
    As such, the petition fails to present credible new information, or 
otherwise offer substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is a 
threat to the great hammerhead shark.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The petition states that exposure to and bioaccumulation of 
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other pollutants and 
contaminants likely have played a role in the decline of the great 
hammerhead shark or can increase the species' risk of extinction. 
However, none of the references or information provided by the petition 
examined pollutant or contaminant levels within the great hammerhead 
shark. The petition also failed to provide any evidence of a decline in 
the species due to pollutants or contaminants.
    Our prior finding, which considered whether the potential 
bioaccumulation of toxins and metals was contributing to the extinction 
risk for the great hammerhead shark, determined based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information that this was not 
significantly contributing to the species' extinction risk (79 FR 
33518, June 11, 2014). Due to the absence of any information in the 
petition to support extrapolating the referenced studies to the great 
hammerhead shark and provide some indication that these constituents 
may be affecting this species' abundance, the statements in the 
petition are nothing more than unsupported conclusions. As such, the 
petition fails to present credible new information or otherwise offer 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that other 
natural or manmade factors are a threat to the great hammerhead shark.

Similarity of Appearance Listing

    The petition also requested that the great hammerhead shark be 
listed due to its similarity of appearance to the scalloped hammerhead 
shark (Sphyrna lewini), a species protected by the ESA since 2014 (79 
FR 38213, July 3, 2014); however, the petition does not provide any 
credible new information or otherwise offer substantial scientific or 
commercial information that was not previously considered in our 12-
month finding for the great hammerhead shark, which already considered 
the statutory factors regarding similarity of appearance (79 FR 33509, 
June 11, 2014).
    Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)) provides that the 
Secretary may treat any species as an endangered or threatened species 
even though it is not listed pursuant to section 4 of the ESA when the 
following three conditions are satisfied: (1) Such species so closely 
resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has 
been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would 
have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the 
listed and unlisted species; (2) the effect of this substantial 
difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) such treatment of an unlisted species will 
substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of this 
chapter (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)(A)-(C)).
    Although the great hammerhead shark and scalloped hammerhead shark 
have similar features (such as a unique head shape), the petition does 
not provide any references or new information that indicates our 
enforcement personnel have substantial difficulty in differentiating 
the two species. The great hammerhead shark is the largest of the 
hammerhead shark species, and was noted to reach lengths of up to 610 
cm total length (TL) (Compagno 1984); although recent sizes have 
decreased in the species. Based on information in our great hammerhead 
shark status review report (Miller et al. 2014), the largest great 
hammerhead shark captured during a study in the northwestern Atlantic 
Ocean and Gulf of Mexico was of 415 cm TL (Piercy et al. 2010). Piercy 
et al. (2010) also noted sizes of up to 445 cm TL off northern 
Australia and ~400 cm TL off South Africa for great hammerhead sharks. 
On the other hand, observed maximum sizes of scalloped hammerhead 
sharks are smaller and range from 331-346 cm TL (Stevens and Lyle 1989, 
Chen et al. 1990). In addition to their sizes, the shapes of their head 
are also distinctive and aid in the differentiation of the two species. 
In the great hammerhead shark, the front margin of the head is nearly 
straight, forming a ``T-shape,'' with a shallow notch in the middle, 
whereas the scalloped hammerhead shark has a broadly arched head, with 
distinct indentations in the center as well as on either side of the 
middle notch.
    As stated in our 12-month finding (79 FR 33509, June 11, 2014), the 
fins of these two species can also be distinguished without difficulty. 
The great hammerhead shark has a very tall, distinctive, crescent-
shaped first dorsal fin whereas the first dorsal fin of a scalloped 
hammerhead shark is shorter and has a rounded apex (Abercrombie et al., 
2013). According to a genetic study that examined the concordance 
between assigned Hong Kong market categories and the corresponding 
fins, the great hammerhead market category ``Gu pian'' had an 88 
percent concordance rate, indicating that traders can accurately 
identify and separate great hammerhead shark fins from the other 
hammerhead species (Abercrombie et al. 2005, Clarke et al. 2006).
    Given the distinctive head and body characteristics of the great 
hammerhead shark and the scalloped hammerhead shark, and evidence that 
fins of the species can also be accurately identified and separated, we 
are aware of no evidence to suggest that enforcement personnel may have 
substantial difficulties in attempting to differentiate between the 
great hammerhead shark and the scalloped hammerhead shark. Therefore, 
we do not find that the petition presents any new or substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that a similarity of 
appearance listing may be warranted at this time.

Petition Finding

    We thoroughly reviewed the information presented in the petition, 
in context of information readily available in our files, and found 
that it does not provide any credible new information regarding great 
hammerhead sharks or otherwise offer substantial information not 
already considered in our status review report of the great hammerhead 
shark (Miller et al. 2014) and 12-month finding (79 FR 33509, June 11, 
2014). As such, we find that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).


[[Page 67457]]


    Dated: November 1, 2022.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-24306 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P