Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 15557 

13See Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR 

65694. 

14See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Magnesium Metal From the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 19928 (April 15, 2005). 

number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will 

be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.13 As 

TMM’s entries are subject to the PRCwide rate, any suspended entries will 

also be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of this notice of final 

results of the administrative review, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) For TMI, which claimed no 

shipments, the cash deposit rate will 

remain unchanged from the rate 

assigned to TMI in the most recently 

completed review of the company; (2) 

for previously investigated or reviewed 

PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not 

under review in this segment of the 

proceeding but who have separate rates, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the exporter-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate (including TMM, which 

claimed no shipments, but has not been 

found to be separate from the PRC-wide 

entity), the cash deposit rate will be the 

PRC-wide rate of 141.49 percent; 14 and 

(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this POR. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials, or 

conversion to judicial protective order, 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results and this notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 18, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06727 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 141015853–4853–01] 

RIN 0648–XD563 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding 

on a Petition To List the Harbor 

Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the 

Baltic Sea as an Endangered or 

Threatened Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS) Under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month Finding. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) 

in the Baltic Sea as an endangered or 

threatened distinct population segment 

(DPS) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended. We conducted 

a DPS analysis based on our joint U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS 

DPS Policy. Based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that the harbor porpoise 

population in the Baltic Sea is not a DPS 

because it does not meet the criterion 

for significance outlined by our DPS 

Policy. Thus, we find this population is 

not warranted for listing. 

DATES: This finding was made on March 

24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Information used to make 

this finding is available for public 

inspection by appointment during 

normal business hours at NMFS, Office 

of Protected Resources, 1315 East West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 

petition and a list of the references we 

used can also be found at http:// 

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

petition81.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Coll, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 427–8455. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 15, 2013, we received a 

petition from the WildEarth Guardians 

to list 81 marine species or 

subpopulations as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). We found that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted for 

24 species and 3 subpopulations, 

announced the initiation of status 

reviews, and solicited information from 

the public for each of the 24 species and 

3 subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 

25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 

2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 

79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 

FR 10104, February 24, 2014). We 

completed comprehensive status 

reviews under the ESA for six foreign 

marine species and evaluated whether 

one foreign marine subpopulation met 

our DPS Policy criteria in response to 

the petition (79 FR 74954; December 16, 

2014). 

This notice addresses the finding for 

one of the petitioned subpopulations: a 

putative Baltic Sea harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) subpopulation (79 

FR 9880; February 21, 2014). The 

remaining species and subpopulation 

will be addressed in subsequent 

findings. 

We are responsible for determining 

whether species are threatened or 

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

1531 et seq.). To make this 

determination, we first consider 

whether a group of organisms 

constitutes a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, 

then whether the status of the species 

qualifies it for listing as either 

threatened or endangered. Section 3 of 

the ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ as ‘‘any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature.’’ On 

February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; 

together, the Services) adopted a policy 

describing what constitutes a DPS of a 

taxonomic species or subspecies (the 

DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722). The DPS 

Policy identified two elements that must 

be considered when identifying a DPS: 

(1) The discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

15558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 

belongs. As stated in the joint DPS 

Policy, Congress expressed its 

expectation that the Services would 

exercise authority with regard to DPSs 

sparingly and only when the biological 

evidence indicates such action is 

warranted. Listing determinations under 

the ESA must be based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information. 

Under the DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: 

(1) It is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

(2) It is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

If a population segment is considered 

discrete under one or more of the above 

conditions, we will evaluate its 

biological and ecological significance. 

The significance consideration may 

include the following: 

(1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique for the taxon, 

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon, 

(3) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historic range, or 

(4) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. 

Species Description 

The harbor porpoise, Phocoena 

phocoena, is a widely distributed 

cetacean found in temperate and 

subarctic coastal and offshore waters of 

the northern hemisphere and is usually 

seen in groups of two to five animals 

(Reeves et al., 2002). Although it is 

sometimes found in offshore waters, it 

is primarily considered a coastal species 

limited to continental shelf waters 

(Perrin et al., 2002; Hammond et al., 

2008), possibly due to feeding 

preference and reproduction. It is also 

commonly found in bays, estuaries, 

harbors, and fjords (Powell et al., 2002). 

Harbor porpoises are easy to identify 

because they are smaller than most 

other cetaceans in the northern 

hemisphere. Males can reach up to 1.57 

m in length and 61 kg in weight, while 

females reach up to 1.68 m and 76 kg 

(Reeves et al., 2002). They reach 

maximum girth just ahead of the dorsal 

fin, which gives them a robust body and 

short back (Reeves et al., 2002). They 

are medium to dark gray with a white 

belly and throat, a short blunt beak, and 

a medium-sized triangular dorsal fin. 

Their maximum life span is thought to 

be 24 years (Reeves et al., 2002). Data 

from the Baltic Sea indicates that 

females are larger than males in all age 

classes (Benke et al., 1997). 

Despite their small size, harbor 

porpoises are highly mobile animals. 

Satellite tagging studies show that 

harbor porpoises have an average swim 

speed of 0.6–2.3 km/h, can swim 

distances of up to 58 km/day, and have 

large home ranges (Read and Westgate, 

1997; Sveegaard et al., 2011). This 

movement likely has implications for 

reproduction, foraging behavior, 

bioenergetics, environmental 

preferences, and population structure. 

Sexual maturity is generally reached 

at about 3 to 4 years, with a large 

proportion of mature females producing 

a calf every year (Read and Hohn, 1995; 

Koschinski, 2002; Reeves et al., 2002). 

Gestation lasts 10—11 months (Reeves 

et al., 2002). Mean conception date is 

reported as 6 July ± 9.5 days in the Bay 

of Fundy and Gulf of Maine and 25 July 

± 20.3 days in the Kattegat and 

Skagerrak seas in the Baltic region 

(Borjesson and Read, 2003). Timing of 

conception was found to be significantly 

earlier in the Baltic Sea (18 August ± 

11.8 days) than in the North Sea, but did 

not differ between the Kattegat and 

Skagerrak (Borjesson and Read, 2003). 

The North Atlantic harbor porpoise sex 

ratio has been reported as biased toward 

males throughout life (Lockyer, 2003). 

The sex ratio found in Danish waters in 

the Baltic region is 55:45, male:female 

(Clausen and Andersen, 1988; Sorensen 

and Kinze, 1994). 

It is thought that shallow water areas 

are important for harbor porpoise 

calving, nursing, or breeding (Kinze, 

1990; Hammond et al., 1995). Calving 

areas in the Baltic region have been 

identified inside the 20-meter depth 

contour in the northern part of the Little 

Belt, Great Belt, Sejro Bight, waters 

north of Fyn, archipelago south of Fyn, 

and Smalandsfarvandet (Kinze, 1990). 

The significantly higher proportion of 

calves off Sylt and Amrum in the North 

Sea indicates that these coastal waters 

are used as a preferred calving ground 

for North Sea harbor porpoises (Kremer 

et al., 1990; Sonntag et al., 1999). North 

Sea harbor porpoises have also been 

found in high densities during summer 

at the tip of Jylland in the northern part 

of the Danish North Sea, 30km from the 

Danish coast at Horns Rev, and also in 

the German Bight (Teilmann et al., 

2008), suggesting possible calving areas 

or even foraging areas. 

Harbor porpoises’ small size, high 

mobility, and relatively fast 

reproduction cycle require a great deal 

of energy (Read, 1999; Koopman et al., 

2002; MacLeod et al., 2007). For this 

reason, they feed on high lipid content 

fishes (Perin et al., 2002), though 

preferred prey species can vary 

regionally based upon availability 

(Koschinski, 2002; Perrin et al., 2002; 

Hammond et al., 2008). Harbor 

porpoises are solitary feeders and do not 

cooperatively forage (Reeves et al., 

2002). Herring, sprat, and cod have been 

reported as the most important 

schooling fish prey items in the Baltic 

Sea (Koschinski, 2002), and harbor 

porpoises in Polish Baltic waters have 

been reported to feed on herring, sprat, 

and gobies (Malinga et al., 1997). Harbor 

porpoises in the Baltic Sea feed 

opportunistically on certain species 

found in their local area (Koschinski, 

2002), and this may be the explanation 

for significant differences in species 

preference when compared to harbor 

porpoises in other areas, such as the 

North Sea (Benke et al., 1998). Harbor 

porpoises in the Kattegat and Skagerrak 

seas are reported to feed on Atlantic 

herring as juveniles and Atlantic hagfish 

as adults (Boerjesson et al., 2003). 

Long-distance migrations of Baltic 

harbor porpoises were thought to occur 

in the past (Mohl-Hansen, 1954; Wolk, 

1969; Andersen, 1982; Gaskin, 1984). 

This assumption of a massive seasonal 

migration has since been challenged in 

the literature (Kinze, 2008; Andersen 

and Clausen, 1993), and modern 

telemetry research in the Baltic region 

has shown there to be more of a 

seasonal net movement rather than 

complete seasonal migration (Read and 

Westgate, 1997; Teilmann et al., 2008; 

Sveegaard et al., 2011). 

Environmental conditions may drive 

some of their net movement. Decreasing 

access to food or air and ice 

entrapments could occur when the 

Baltic Sea almost completely freezes 

during harsh winters, causing reports of 

mass deaths of harbor porpoises 

(Teilmann and Lowry, 1996). There are 

severe ice conditions reported in the 

southeastern Baltic Sea, but they are not 

consistent (Seina and Palusuo, 1996). 

There have been several winters with 

almost complete ice coverage in the 

Baltic Sea, which would have forced 

harbor porpoises from the Baltic Sea 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 15559 

into the Belt Sea (Teilmann and Lowry, 

1996; Koslowski and Schmelzer, 2007). 

Environmental preferences for ideal 

foraging and reproduction conditions 

could also drive their movement. 

Telemetry studies of harbor porpoises in 

the Baltic region show that they 

concentrate in some areas (Read and 

Westgate, 1997; Teilmann et al., 2008; 

Sveegaard et al., 2011). Sveegaard et al. 

(2011) collected satellite telemetry data 

to identify key habitat use in the Baltic 

region by tagging harbor porpoises from 

a Skagerrak group (northern Kattegat, 

Skagerrak, North Sea) and an Inner 

Danish Waters group (southern Kattegat, 

Belts Seas, western Baltic Sea). They 

found that harbor porpoises in the 

region are not evenly distributed, and 

reported nine high density areas for the 

region, with clear seasonal movement 

for all animals tracked. Porpoises from 

the Inner Danish Waters group move 

south in winter, whereas porpoises from 

the Skagerrak group move west to the 

North Sea; during the spring and 

summer reproductive period, the 

Skagerrak group stays close to one 

particular area, while the Inner Danish 

Waters group spreads out over the entire 

range of their distribution. No difference 

was found in home range size in 

relation to sex for the Inner Danish 

Waters group, but males of the 

Skagerrak group had larger home ranges 

than the females. A more recent 

abundance study by Viquerat et al. 

(2014) confirmed that harbor porpoises 

in the Baltic region are not evenly 

distributed and reported them to 

concentrate in high density areas. 

There is also other evidence that 

harbor porpoises move across water 

bodies in the Baltic region. Stable 

isotope analysis of prey items from the 

Baltic and Kattegat/Skagerrak Seas has 

shown that harbor porpoises move 

between the Baltic and Kattegat/ 

Skagerrak Seas, although the magnitude 

of these movements is not well known 

(Angerbjoern et al., 2006). An extensive 

review of sighting surveys and tagging 

has indicated extensive movement of 

animals within and between Inner 

Danish Waters and the Skagerrak/North 

Sea (Lockyer and Kinze, 2003). 

DPS Analysis 

The petitioner did not define the 

geographic boundaries of its petitioned 

Baltic Sea subpopulation. Therefore, we 

used the best available data from the 

region to determine whether any 

boundaries exist that could be used to 

define a DPS within the Baltic region. 

Here we review the best available 

information, including information on 

physical, physiological, ecological, and 

behavioral factors, to identify a Baltic 

Sea subpopulation and determine 

whether it is a DPS, as defined in our 

Policy. 

The harbor porpoise is comprised of 

three subspecies in the northern 

hemisphere, which are assumed to be 

reproductively segregated by ocean 

basin: The North Pacific (Phocoena 

phocoena vomerina, Gill, 1865), North 

Atlantic (P. phocoena phocoena, L., 

1758), and Black Sea/Sea of Azov (P. 

phocoena relicta, Abel, 1905) (Gaskin, 

1984; Rosel et al., 1995). Within the 

North Atlantic subspecies, some authors 

have classified the Eastern and Western 

Atlantic harbor porpoises as 

populations based on migration distance 

(Gaskin, 1984; IWC, Sub-Committee on 

Small Cetaceans, 1996). More recently, 

genetic studies also differentiate harbor 

porpoises from the Eastern and Western 

Atlantic (Rosel et al., 1999; Tolley et al., 

2001); however, an analysis using 

mitochondrial DNA has shown that 

movement of harbor porpoises across 

the Atlantic does occur at a low level 

(Rosel et al., 1999). Harbor porpoises in 

the Western Atlantic exhibit higher 

genetic diversity than those in the 

Eastern Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999). 

Finer-level genetic patterns of 

population structure remain to be 

resolved for the Eastern Atlantic 

population (Tolley et al., 2004). 

The coastal nature of harbor porpoises 

led to an assumption of depth-restricted 

movement and a widespread acceptance 

of the proposal of thirteen populations 

in the North Atlantic (Tolley et al., 

1999) (Figure 1): (1) Gulf of Maine/Bay 

of Fundy; (2) Gulf of St. Lawrence; (3) 

Newfoundland and Labrador; (4) West 

Greenland; (5) Iceland; (6) Faroe Islands; 

(7) Norway and Barents Sea; (8) North 

Sea; (9) Kattegat and adjacent waters; 

(10) Baltic Sea; (11) Ireland and Western 

British Isles; (12) Iberia and Bay of 

Biscay; and (13) Northwest Africa 

(Gaskin, 1984; Yurick and Gaskin, 1987; 

IWC, Sub-Committee on Small 

Cetaceans, 1996; Rosel et al., 1999; 

Andersen, 2003). Regional genetic and 

other studies have attempted to detail a 

finer subpopulation structure in the 

Eastern and Western Atlantic and test 

the assumption of the above divisions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

15560 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 

Discreteness 

Available information to inform our 

analysis of ‘‘discreteness’’ consists of 

genetic studies, skull measurements, 

contaminant profiles, and tooth 

ultrastructure. We examined the best 

available information in each of these 

categories to determine whether there is 

a set of individuals in the Baltic region 

that is discrete from the rest of the taxon 

(Figure 2). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN24MR15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 15561 

Genetic Information 

Several genetic studies on the harbor 

porpoise have been conducted in the 

Baltic region using a wide range of 

methods, sampling locations, sample 

pooling, and genetic markers, which are 

not consistent among research groups. 

The most common genetic analyses 

have used mitochondrial DNA, followed 

by microsatellites, Random Amplified 

Polymorphic DNA (RAPD), and 

isozymes to infer genetics. 

Three studies tested for genetic 

divergence of individuals inhabiting the 

Baltic Sea proper, as defined by the 

western boundary at the Limhamn and 

Darss underwater ridges (Stensland, 

1997; Wang and Berggren, 1997; 

Wiemann et al., 2010) (Figure 2). These 

studies did not find consistent support 

for a genetically distinct subpopulation 

within the Baltic Sea proper. For 

instance, Stensland (1997) found no 

significant differences between samples 

from the Swedish portion of the Baltic 

Sea proper and the Skagerrak when 

using a RAPD technique. Wiemann et 

al. (2010) used mitochondrial and 

microsatellite DNA to demonstrate a 

small but significant genetic separation 

between the Baltic Sea proper and the 

Belt Seas. However, migration rates 

between the Baltic Sea proper and 

adjacent Belt Seas were estimated to be 

high, at 7.5 migrants per generation. Due 

to low genetic divergence, and evidence 

for continued gene flow and movement, 

the authors admitted that ‘‘it is difficult 

to argue in favour [sic] of a 

‘demographic independency’ of the 

Baltic Sea population.’’ Overall, existing 

research is consistent in supporting low 

or no divergence among individuals 

from the Baltic Sea proper as compared 

to others in the Baltic region, supporting 

continued genetic exchange and lack of 

reproductive isolation or demographic 

independence. Thus, due to the low 

extent of differentiation and lack of 

statistical confidence in these results, 

the weight of genetic evidence does not 

support a conclusion that there is a 

discrete Baltic Sea proper 

subpopulation in accordance with our 

DPS Policy. 

Even though available genetic 

information did not support the 

conclusion that there is a discrete Baltic 

Sea proper population, a thorough 

review of available genetic information 

for harbor porpoises in the entire Baltic 

region revealed consistent support that 

individuals from the region are 

genetically differentiated from those 

individuals inhabiting the North Sea. 

First, all of the microsatellite and 

mitochondrial DNA methods used by 

Andersen (1993; Anderson et al., 1995; 

Anderson et al., 1997; Anderson et al, 

2001) differentiated samples from Inner 

Danish Waters (pooled sample set from 

the Kattegat, Belts, and Baltic Seas) and 

the North Sea. Tiedemann et al. (1996) 

also found a highly significant 

difference in mitochondrial haplotype 

compositions between their North Sea 

and Baltic Sea (pooled sample set from 

the Baltic Sea proper and Belt Seas) 

samples. These earlier studies provide 

consistent support that individuals in 

the North Sea have diverged from those 

inhabiting the waters of the Baltic 

region. 

The study by Wiemann et al. (2010) 

provides further evidence supporting 

divergence of North Sea individuals 

from other Baltic region individuals. 

They suggested that this genetic 

transition occurs in the Kattegat Sea, 

based on the most comprehensive 

mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA 

study on 497 harbor porpoises in the 

Baltic region. They detected overall 

weak population structure in the region. 

However, the population structure that 

was detected showed a tendency for the 

North, Skagerrak, and Kattegat Seas to 

cluster separately from the Belt and 

Inner Baltic Sea samples, with strong 

evidence for mixture of genetic lineages 

throughout the region. The transition 

zone in the Kattegat Sea area was 

supported by an abrupt shift in 

haplotype composition; one particular 

haplotype that is almost absent in the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN24MR15.001</GPH>
15562 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 

North Sea was the most abundant in the 

Belt Sea and Inner Baltic Sea. 

Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA 

pairwise comparisons of genetic 

divergence among Skagerrak and 

Kattegat samples showed significant 

divergence between them, indicating 

that the genetic split likely occurs 

somewhere within the Kattegat Sea. 

This study obtained generally strong 

agreement between independent data 

from microsatellite and mitochondrial 

haplotypes, providing robust support for 

this genetic transition zone in the 

Kattegat Sea. 

Based on the best available genetic 

data, there is evidence that the harbor 

porpoise is weakly diverged between 

the North Sea and the Baltic region past 

Kattegat and south/eastward into the 

Baltic Sea. 

Skull Comparison Information 

Skull comparisons of harbor 

porpoises in the Baltic Region have also 

been used to explore morphological 

evidence for population structure. The 

weight of available skull information 

aligns with genetic information in that 

it differentiates North Sea harbor 

porpoises of both sexes from those in 

the Baltic region. A finer population 

structure is seen for females within the 

Baltic region, but this same skull 

differentiation is not seen in males. 

Skull studies support the genetic 

information indicating a genetic break, 

or transition zone, between the North 

Sea and the Baltic region. Non-metric 

(not measured) skull characters of 

harbor porpoises from the North Sea 

and Baltic Sea are found to differ (both 

sexes; Kinze 1990, Huggenberger et al. 

2000). In addition, harbor porpoise skull 

measurements are different between the 

North Sea and Baltic Sea (both sexes; 

Kinze, 1985, 1990; Borjesson and 

Berggren, 1997; Huggenberger et al., 

2000; Galatius et al., 2012). 

Some skull studies achieved a finerscale geographic resolution of harbor 

porpoises in the Baltic region. However, 

the statistical results of these studies are 

more robust in females than in males, 

suggesting male migration and mixing 

between areas (Huggenberger et al., 

2002). Borjesson and Berggren (1997) 

examined harbor porpoise skulls from 

the Baltic Sea proper and the Kattegat 

and Skagerrak Seas and their statistical 

analyses showed geographicallyrelevant differences in skull characters 

between females from the Baltic Sea 

proper and the Kattegat and Skagerrak 

Seas, but not the same for males; five of 

16 skull characters were significantly 

different in female samples, whereas 

one of 16 skull characters significantly 

differed in male samples. 

Galatius et al. (2012) used geometric 

morphometric skull comparisons (70 

cranial landmarks registered with a 3-D 

digitizer) from six geographic areas—the 

North Sea, Skagerrak Sea, Kattegat Sea, 

Belt Seas, western Baltic, and Inner 

Baltic Sea and found highly significant 

shape differences in skulls among these 

six geographic areas. There were no 

significant differences between males 

and females or sampling seasons within 

any of the samples. Their results 

indicate a morphometric segregation of 

harbor porpoises within the Belt Seas/ 

Inner Baltic Sea. However, this study 

stands alone in differentiating this fine 

population structuring within the Baltic 

region, as the weight of genetic and 

other skull information does not support 

the same conclusion. 

The weight of available skull 

information aligns with genetic 

information in that it differentiates 

North Sea harbor porpoises of both 

sexes from those in the Baltic region. 

Available skull information provides 

evidence of a finer population structure 

within the Baltic region for females, but 

not for males. This difference provides 

evidence of exchange of male, but not 

female, individuals between and among 

the Baltic region and the North Sea. One 

skull study was able to detail a fine 

population structure for both sexes 

within the Baltic region, but the weight 

of other available evidence does not 

support such a conclusion. 

Contaminant Profile Information 

A few studies have distinguished 

North Sea or Skagerrak harbor porpoises 

from the rest of the Baltic region based 

on contaminant levels and patterns. 

Bruhn et al. (1997; 1999) analyzed 

blubber samples in harbor porpoises 

from the German North Sea, Baltic Sea 

proper, and off the west coast of 

Greenland. Clear differences existed 

between the Baltic Sea proper and North 

Sea animals for certain contaminants. 

Berggren et al. (1999) found that mature 

males in the Swedish part of the Baltic 

Sea had significantly different 

contamination patterns of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) than 

animals from the Swedish Kattegat and 

Skagerrak coasts and from western 

Norway. This information is consistent 

with genetic information to show 

population differences between the 

North Sea and Baltic region. 

Tooth Ultrastructure Information 

Tooth ultrastructure in the harbor 

porpoise has been examined to 

differentiate between porpoises from 

different regions. Lockyer (1999) found 

different characteristics in tooth layers, 

which may be genetic in origin or 

influenced by life history events or 

other factors. The author found 

significant differences in several tooth 

characteristics between the North Sea, 

Skagerrak Sea, Kattegat Sea, Inner 

Danish waters, and the Baltic Sea 

proper. Lockyer (1999) stated the use of 

tooth ultrastructure alone ‘‘is not 

sufficient to allow an individual animal 

to be assigned to a particular 

management unit.’’ Thus, her results are 

not informative alone and should be 

combined with other studies when 

helping to delineate a population 

structure. The tooth ultrastructure study 

does not align with genetic and other 

information, since it differentiates a 

finer scale than is supported by the 

weight of available information. 

Therefore, we do not find this 

information persuasive. 

Conclusion Regarding Discreteness 

After combining the weight of 

evidence from genetic, skull, 

contaminant, and tooth studies we 

conclude that there is a discrete 

subpopulation of harbor porpoises in 

the Baltic region (from the Kattegat Sea, 

at the genetic break found by Wiemann 

et al. (2010), eastward into and 

including the Baltic Sea proper). 

Although there are shared haplotypes 

among harbor porpoises in the Baltic 

region and evidence of some male 

movement to suggest that a certain level 

of gene flow exists within the Baltic 

region, the repeated evidence of 

statistically significant genetic 

divergence from North Sea/Skagerrak 

samples guides our conclusion that this 

can be considered a discrete 

subpopulation. Available information 

on skull measurements and contaminant 

studies supports our conclusion based 

on genetic information, since these 

studies also differentiate North Sea/ 

Skagerrak harbor porpoises from those 

in the Baltic region. Lockyer’s (1999) 

study differentiated tooth structure 

among harbor porpoises from the North 

Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat, Inner Danish 

waters, and the Baltic Sea; however, she 

caveats that this must be combined with 

other supporting information, and we 

did not find that the weight of other 

available information supports her 

proposed population structure. The 

weight of all evidence favors our 

conclusion of a population split at the 

Kattegat Sea. 

Since we determined that there is a 

discrete Baltic region subpopulation, we 

next determine whether the discrete 

population is significant to the taxon. 

From this point forward in the 

document, we define the Baltic harbor 

porpoise subpopulation as beginning at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Notices 15563 

the Kattegat inward (south/east) to and 

including the Baltic Sea proper. 

Significance 

The identified discrete Baltic 

subpopulation does not persist in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique for 

the taxon. Differences seen in harbor 

porpoise morphological characteristics 

(skull and tooth analyses) may be 

related to differences in environment, 

but available information is not 

informative enough at this point to link 

these characteristics to distinct habitats 

or specific adaptations at present. The 

habitat utilization reported for the Baltic 

harbor porpoise does not differ from 

general descriptions of the species’ 

habitat preference. They are found in 

the shallow coastal areas of the Baltic 

region and their preference for shallow 

water calving and nursing does not 

differ from the general preference of the 

species. The opportunistic feeding 

nature of the Baltic harbor porpoise also 

does not show it to persist in a unique 

ecological setting. They target high lipid 

content fish to fulfill large energetic 

requirements, similar to the general 

preference of the species. 

There are insufficient data to 

conclude that loss of the identified 

discrete Baltic subpopulation would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon. The Baltic subpopulation 

comprises only a small geographic area 

in the total range of the species and 

even the subspecies. There are 

purported to be around ten other 

subpopulations in the North Atlantic 

(Tolley et al., 1999) and other harbor 

porpoise populations in the North 

Pacific and Black Sea. Additionally, 

available information reveals movement 

and some level of gene flow throughout 

the Baltic region through evidence of 

shared haplotypes, which is discussed 

further below. Although there are 

caveats to determining the exact level of 

mixing between the North Sea and 

Baltic region (and vice versa), there is 

evidence to show at least some level of 

mixing, such that a loss of the Baltic 

subpopulation would not lead to a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon. 

There is evidence of continued 

admixture and gene flow between these 

regions. This gene flow may be 

sustained by the high dispersal capacity 

and movement of these animals, and the 

lack of obvious physical barriers 

between the regions. 

While multiple studies confirm 

divergence between individuals from 

the North Sea and those inhabiting the 

Baltic region past the Kattegat Sea, the 

absolute extent of divergence is 

consistently weak. For instance, all 

analyses of mitochondrial haplotype 

distribution have revealed shared 

haplotypes throughout the region, even 

across the Kattegat ‘transition zone’ 

(Tiedemann et al., 1996; Wang and 

Berggren, 1997; Wiemann et al., 2010). 

In Wiemann et al. (2010), an abrupt shift 

in microsatellite haplotype distribution 

was observed between the North Sea 

and Baltic region past the Kattegat Sea, 

but the two most abundant haplotypes 

only differ by a single point mutation. 

No physical barrier exists between the 

Kattegat and the North Sea, porpoises 

are known to move long distances 

(Teilmann et al., 2009), and evidence 

suggests that genetic connectivity can 

occur among harbor porpoises separated 

thousands of kilometers in the North 

Atlantic (Tolley et al., 1999; Fontaine et 

al., 2007). So, while the weak 

divergence (separating the North Sea 

from the Baltic region) is well 

supported, continued genetic exchange, 

connectivity, and ongoing reproduction 

among animals throughout the region is 

likely. 

There is no evidence that the 

identified discrete Baltic subpopulation 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historical range. 

Harbor porpoises are historically 

widespread in the northern hemisphere. 

As stated previously, within the North 

Atlantic subspecies, genetic studies 

differentiate harbor porpoises between 

the Eastern and Western Atlantic, with 

some level of mixing. The Baltic 

subpopulation does not represent the 

only surviving natural occurrence of a 

taxon that may be more abundant 

elsewhere as an introduced population 

outside its historical range, as there are 

clearly many other existing natural 

populations. 

There is no evidence that the 

identified discrete Baltic population 

differs markedly from other populations 

of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. The attachment of skull 

characters to unique environments or 

conditions would show evidence of 

adaptive genetic characteristics; 

however, the available harbor porpoise 

skull information from the Baltic region 

does not definitively attach characters to 

environmental connections to show that 

any skull differences are adaptive. One 

harbor porpoise skull study suggests 

that skull morphology could be attached 

to particular environments or conditions 

(Galatius et al., 2012). However, this is 

not supported by the weight of genetic 

evidence and is not even supported by 

other skull analyses, as they did not test 

adaptive skull characteristics and attach 

them to local or unique environmental 

conditions in the Baltic region. In 

addition, we did not find much 

discussion in the available literature 

about how differences in skull character 

for harbor porpoises may relate to 

adaptation to a particular prey item. 

Most of these skull studies attempt to 

delineate a population structure without 

testing the attachment of particular skull 

distinctions or characteristics. 

Conclusion Regarding Significance 

In conclusion, we find that the Baltic 

harbor porpoise subpopulation, while it 

may be discrete, does not meet any 

factors under the significance criterion. 

As such, we conclude that the Baltic 

harbor porpoise subpopulation is not a 

DPS as defined by our joint DPS Policy. 

Finding 

We find that the Baltic harbor 

porpoise subpopulation does not meet 

the DPS Policy criteria for qualifying as 

a DPS. Therefore, listing the petitioned 

entity under the ESA is not warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this notice can be found on our Web 

site and is available upon request (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: March 18, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06749 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22––P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Synthetic Biology Standards 

Consortium—Kick-off Workshop 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

& Technology (NIST), Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public workshop. 

SUMMARY: NIST announces the 

Synthetic Biology Standards 

Consortium (SBSC)—Kick-off Workshop 

to be held on Tuesday March 31, 2015 

from 9 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Pacific time. The 

SBSC will be convened as a standards 

setting consortium focused on the 

shared standards development needs of 

consortium participants. It will provide 

safe harbor for collaborative work 

through the formation of technical 

standards-setting working groups. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES