Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18343 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 141216999–5311–01] 

RIN 0648–XD669 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s Whale 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. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition to list the Gulf 

of Mexico Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni) as an endangered distinct 

population segment (DPS) under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. Accordingly, we will 

conduct a review of the status of this 

species to determine if the petitioned 

action is warranted. To ensure that the 

status review is comprehensive, we 

solicit information pertaining to this 

species from any interested party. 

DATES: Information and comments on 

the subject action must be received by 

June 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

information, or data on this document, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2014–0157, 

by either of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0157, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

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, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Rueter, NMFS Southeast Region, 

727–824–5350; or Ron Salz, NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources, 301–427– 

8171. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 18, 2014, we received 

a petition from the Natural Resources 

Defense Council to list the Gulf of 

Mexico population of Bryde’s whale 

(Balaenoptera edeni) as an endangered 

DPS under the ESA. Supporting 

information in the form of bibliographic 

references, reprints of pertinent 

publications, copies of reports or letters 

from authorities, and maps as required 

by 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iv) was not 

included in the petition. We requested 

those materials on October 10, 2014, 

and on October 21, 2014, we received 

some materials. We made a second 

request for outstanding information on 

November 26, 2014, and received 

materials the same day. Copies of this 

petition are available from us (see 

ADDRESSES, above) and can be found 

at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_

resources/listing_petitions/index.html 

ESA Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions and Evaluation Framework 

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

as amended (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 

we find 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 are to 

conclude the review with a finding as to 

whether, in fact, the petitioned action is 

warranted within 12 months of receipt 

of the petition. Because the finding at 

the 12-month stage is based on a more 

thorough review of the available 

information, as compared to the narrow 

scope of review at the 90-day stage, a 

‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not 

prejudge the outcome of the status 

review. 

Under the ESA a listing determination 

addresses 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) policy 

clarifies the agencies’ interpretation of 

the phrase ‘‘distinct population 

segment’’ for the purposes of listing, 

delisting, and reclassifying a species 

under the ESA (‘‘DPS Policy’’; 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 because of 

any one or a combination of the 

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

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; disease or predation; 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and any other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the species’ 

existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 

424.11(c)). 

ESA-implementing regulations issued 

jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 

424.14(b)) 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. When 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of bibliographic references, reprints of 

pertinent publications, copies of reports 

or letters from authorities, and maps (50 

CFR 424.14(b)(2)). 

Court decisions clarify the 

appropriate scope and limitations of the 

NMFS’ review of petitions at the 90-day 

finding stage, in making a determination 

whether 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 

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 would 

conclude it supports the petitioner’s 

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 

negates a positive 90-day finding, if a 

reasonable person would conclude that 

the unknown information itself 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 at issue faces 

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 

at issue (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 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. 

Analysis of the Petition 

We have determined, based on the 

information provided in the petition 

and readily available in our files, that 

substantial information is presented in 

the petition indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. The 

petition contains a recommended 

administrative measure, provides the 

scientific and common name, contains a 

detailed narrative justification for the 

recommended measure, provides 

information on the status of the species, 

and includes supporting 

documentation. Below is a synopsis of 

our analysis of the information provided 

in the petition and readily available in 

our files. 

Bryde’s Whale Species Description 

The Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni) is a baleen whale, more 

specifically a rorqual, belonging to the 

same group as the blue whale and the 

humpback whale. They are distributed 

around the tropical waters of the world 

between 40°N and 40°S, or in waters 

warmer than 16.3°C (Kato, 2002). The 

Bryde’s whale is represented by two 

subspecies: B. e. edeni and B. e. brydei. 

The generally larger form (14–15 m in 

length), B. e. brydei or ‘‘ordinary Bryde’s 

whale,’’ is found in temperate and 

tropical waters within the Atlantic, 

Pacific, and Indian Oceans, with a 

somewhat smaller inshore group found 

in coastal South Africa. The smaller 

form (rarely exceeding 11.5m in length), 

B. e. edeni, has been found only in the 

Western Pacific, in waters off Asia and 

possibly Australia. Two other species, 

the sei whale (B. borealis) and the 

Omura’s whale (B. omurai), are closely 

related to the Bryde’s whale and often 

considered part of the Bryde’s whale 

‘‘complex’’ (Wada et al., 2003; Sasaki et 

al., 2006). Here the term ‘‘Bryde’s 

whale’’ refers to B. edeni and its 

subspecies (B. e. edeni and B. e. brydei). 

Like other rorquals, the Bryde’s whale 

has twin blowholes behind a protruding 

ridge and two rows of baleen plates 

instead of teeth. Good descriptions of 

the Bryde’s whale can be found in Olsen 

(1913) and Best (1977). These reports 

note that the Bryde’s whale is dark 

smoky-gray dorsally and usually white 

ventrally. It is elongated, with a small, 

curved dorsal fin, and slender, pointed 

flippers. These flippers are bluish-black 

dorsally, grey ventrally and can reach 

approximately 10 percent of the total 

length of the animal. The throat area is 

dark bluish-grey, with 42–54 ventral 

grooves or furrows that extend back at 

least to the umbilicus. It has around 280 

(ranging between 255 and 365) 

relatively stiff baleen plates of up to 0.5 

m in length on each side of the mouth. 

Each plate has very coarse bristles 

forming a ‘‘bush’’ at the top. A median 

groove extending from the umbilicus to 

the genital aperture is typically present. 

Bryde’s whales are generally found in 

a range of habitats and water depths. 

Their distribution in the Gulf of Mexico 

appears highly limited to a relatively 

small area off the Florida Panhandle 

along the shelf edge in DeSoto Canyon 

at depths between 100 and 1,000 m (e.g., 

Mullin and Fulling, 2004; Sˇirovic ́ et al., 

2014). There have been no confirmed 

records of Bryde’s whales from the Gulf 

of Mexico outside the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ), but it cannot be 

ruled out that the whales move outside 

this small area, including into the 

waters off Cuba or Mexico; the U.S. EEZ 

only makes up 35 percent of the oceanic 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 

2013). 

The petitioner presented information 

on the status of the population of the 

Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale, and 

additional information was also 

available in our files. There have been 

four point estimates of population size 

made since 1991 for the northern Gulf 

of Mexico (i.e., within the U.S. EEZ 

only). The best abundance estimate for 

the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale is 33 

(Coefficient of Variation [CV] = 1.07) 

from a summer 2009 oceanic survey, 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 18345 

with a minimum population estimate of 

16 whales (NMFS, 2012). This estimate 

is below the 35 animals (CV = 1.10) for 

the 1991 to 1994 period (Hansen et al., 

1995) and the 40 animals (CV = 0.61) 

estimated for the 1996 to 2001 period 

(Mullin and Fulling, 2004), and greater 

than the estimate for 2003 to 2004, 

which was 15 animals (CV = 1.98) 

(Mullin, 2007). While there have been 

four point estimates made, the precision 

of the estimates is poor, there is no 

statistical difference between the 

maximum and minimum estimates 

(NMFS, 2009), and no interpretation of 

population trends should be made from 

these values. NMFS (2009) further 

cautions that the available estimates, 

based on surveys conducted only in the 

U.S. EEZ, cannot account for changes in 

abundance from shifts in distribution 

beyond U.S. waters, and NMFS (2012) 

recommends that Bryde’s whales need 

to be satellite tagged to determine 

whether they use the northeastern Gulf 

exclusively or travel to other areas. 

DPS Analysis 

The petition requests that we 

designate Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of 

Mexico as an endangered DPS and 

presents arguments that Bryde’s whales 

in the Gulf of Mexico meet NMFS and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(together, the Services) requirements for 

identifying a DPS eligible for listing. 

Our DPS policy identifies two elements 

that must be considered when 

identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness 

of the population segment in relation to 

the remainder of the species (or 

subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) 

the significance of the population 

segment to the species to which it 

belongs. 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; or (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 ESA. If 

a population segment is considered 

discrete under one or more of the above 

conditions, its biological and ecological 

significance will then be considered in 

light of Congressional guidance (see 

Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 

1stSession) that the authority to list 

DPSs be used ‘‘sparingly’’ while 

encouraging the conservation of genetic 

diversity. In carrying out this 

examination, the Services will consider 

available scientific evidence of the 

discrete population segment’s 

importance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. This consideration may 

include, but is not limited to, 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. 

The petitioner asserts that genetic and 

morphological information is evidence 

the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale 

population qualifies as a distinct 

population segment under the ESA. The 

petition cites Rosel and Wilcox (2014) 

as evidence the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s 

whale population is as evolutionarily 

distinct as other recognized subspecies 

within the Bryde’s whale complex. The 

petition also includes information 

indicating those whales in the Gulf of 

Mexico are residents and may be 

geographically isolated from other 

Bryde’s whales. Analyzing DNA 

sequence data from three mitochondrial 

DNA and nine nuclear genes, and 

examining 42 nuclear microsatellite loci 

for 21 Bryde’s whale samples, Rosel and 

Wilcox (2014) found that ‘‘Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale haplotypes are 

evolutionarily distinct from other 

members of the Bryde’s whale 

complex.’’ Further, Rosel and Wilcox 

(2014) found that Gulf of Mexico 

Bryde’s whales are as divergent as the 

two already recognized subspecies of 

Bryde’s whales. Rosel and Wilcox 

(2014) also stated that the divergence is 

as great as two species generally are 

from one another, thus we find that the 

petition presents substantial evidence 

that the DPS policy’s criteria for 

discreteness may be met for the Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale. 

The petitioner also argues that the 

Bryde’s whale in the Gulf of Mexico is 

significant because of its unique genetic 

characteristics, its behavior and 

morphology, and because it is the only 

resident baleen whale population in the 

Gulf of Mexico. The petitioners cite the 

findings of Rosel and Wilcox (2014) and 

state the genetic differentiation shown 

by the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale 

makes it evolutionarily significant. The 

petitioners also argue that the Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale is behaviorally 

and morphologically different from 

other Bryde’s whales. Behaviorally, the 

Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whales use a call 

that differs in frequency and repetitive 

structure from variants used in other 

Bryde’s whale populations (Sˇirovic ́ et 

al., 2014; Rice et al., 2014). 

Morphologically, the Gulf of Mexico 

Bryde’s whales’ body lengths seem 

intermediary to the smaller B. e. edeni 

and larger B. e. brydei forms (Best, 1977; 

Rice, 1998). The petitioner also states 

that as the only resident baleen whale 

in the Gulf of Mexico, the Bryde’s whale 

fills a unique ecological niche. We 

therefore conclude that the petition 

presents sufficient evidence that the 

DPS policy’s criteria for significance 

may be met for the Gulf of Mexico 

Bryde’s whale. Because the Gulf of 

Mexico population of Bryde’s whale 

may qualify as a DPS, we will consider 

it a potentially listable entity for 

purposes of this 90-day finding. 

Whether the Gulf of Mexico population 

of Bryde’s whales constitutes a DPS will 

receive further analysis in the status 

review. 

Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors 

The petitioner states the Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale is threatened by 

three (out of five) ESA Section 4(a)(1) 

factors: present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. The petition cites the 

following threats as contributing to the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s 

whale: (1) Ship strikes, (2) acoustic 

impacts, (3) oil spills, (4) other toxic 

chemicals, (5) ocean acidification, (6) 

entanglement in fishing gear, and (7) 

trophic impacts due to overfishing. We 

believe that three of these threats 

(numbers 1, 6, and 7) should be 

categorized under the Section 4(a)(1) 

category ‘‘other natural or manmade 

factors.’’ 

Ship strikes are a recognized source of 

whale mortality (Laist et al., 2006). In 

2009, a Bryde’s whale was struck by a 

ship near Tampa, Florida (Waring et al., 

2013); additionally, eight other Bryde’s 

whales are known to have stranded 

along the U.S. coast of the Gulf of 

Mexico between 1975 and 1996, from 

unknown causes (Laist, 2001). While 

ship collisions probably have a 

negligible effect on the status and trend 

of most whale populations, they may 

have a significant effect on very small 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 65 / Monday, April 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

populations or discrete groups (Laist et 

al., 2001), such as the Gulf of Mexico 

population of Bryde’s whale. The 

petition also states that ship-strike risk 

in the Gulf of Mexico may increase in 

the near future given expansion of the 

Panama Canal and the associated 

increase in vessel traffic. There was one 

documented, lethal ship strike of a 

Bryde’s whale in 2009, involving a 

lactating female (therefore, its calf 

presumably ultimately died as well). 

Detected mortalities are a minimum 

estimate and almost certainly biased 

low. Total human-caused mortality of 

the northern Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s 

whale stock is unknown, but, based on 

the 2009 confirmed mortality and the 

stock’s small size, the annual humancaused mortality to the stock is greater 

than the stock’s potential biological 

removal level (NMFS, 2012), meaning 

that the level of mortality threatens the 

stock’s ability to achieve and maintain 

its optimum sustainable population. 

After reviewing the references and 

information in our files, we agree that, 

given the small population size, injury 

and death from ship strikes may be 

impacting Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale 

to a degree that raises concerns 

regarding the risk of extinction. 

The petition cites numerous sources 

detailing negative effects of acoustic 

impacts on marine mammals, including 

hearing loss, masking of biologically 

significant sounds, and disruption in 

foraging and other vital behaviors (NRC, 

2003; Weilgart, 2007; CBD, 2012). The 

petition cites Azzara et al. (2013) to 

indicate that Gulf of Mexico shipping 

traffic may be disrupting sperm whale 

behavior and possibly communication 

and foraging patterns. The petition 

indicates the calls of Bryde’s whale fall 

well within the range of commercial 

shipping noise (5 to 500 Hz 

[Hildebrand, 2009]) and concludes that 

the high levels of ambient noise in the 

Gulf of Mexico are likely to constrain 

the communication range of Bryde’s 

whales, citing Hatch et al. (2012), and 

may potentially induce a chronic stress 

response, citing Rolland et al. (2012). 

The petition also cites seismic 

exploration using airguns as a threat 

that would degrade Bryde’s whale 

communication, based on the frequency 

overlap between Bryde’s whale calls 

and the peak energy release of the 

airguns. Based on reports from other 

baleen whale species (e.g., Clark and 

Gagnon, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007; Di 

Iorio and Clark, 2010; Castellote et al., 

2012; Blackwell et al., 2013; Cerchio et 

al., 2014), the petition suggests that 

seismic noise may, in addition to 

masking communication, directly 

disrupt other behaviors of Bryde’s 

whales. When we conduct 90-day 

reviews of petitions, we typically look 

for species-specific information that a 

threat is operative. In this case, 

considering the information presented 

on other large cetaceans, the ubiquity of 

major noise-producing sources in the 

Gulf of Mexico, and the apparently 

constrained habitat of Bryde’s whales, 

we find that there is sufficient 

information presented to suggest that 

acoustic impacts may be an operative 

threat to this species, despite the lack of 

information specific to Bryde’s whales. 

After reviewing the information in the 

petition, we conclude that commercial 

and industrial ocean noise may be 

negatively affecting Gulf of Mexico 

Bryde’s whale behavior, physiology, and 

acoustic habitat to a degree that raises 

concerns regarding the risk of 

extinction. 

Petition Finding 

Based on the above information and 

the criteria specified in 50 CFR 

424.14(b)(2), we find substantial 

information was presented on the 

‘‘present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range’’ (i.e., acoustic impacts) 

and on ‘‘other natural or manmade 

factors’’ (i.e., ship strikes) indicating the 

petitioned action of listing the Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale (B. e. edeni) as an 

endangered DPS may be warranted. 

Since we determined that the threats 

associated with acoustic impacts and 

ship strikes indicate that the petitioned 

action may be warranted, we did not 

conduct a detailed analysis of the other 

threats cited by the petitioner here. 

Because we have found that 

substantial information was presented 

to indicate the petitioned action may be 

warranted, we will commence a status 

review of the species. During our status 

review, we will fully address all five of 

the factors set out in Section 4(a)(1). At 

the conclusion of the status review, we 

will determine whether the petitioned 

action is warranted. As previously 

noted, a ‘‘may be warranted’’ finding 

does not prejudge the outcome of the 

status review. 

Information Solicited 

As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of 

the ESA and NMFS’ implementing 

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

are to commence a review of the status 

of the species and make a determination 

within 12 months of receiving the 

petition as to whether the petitioned 

action is warranted. We intend that any 

final action resulting from this review 

be as accurate and as effective as 

possible. Therefore, we open a 60-day 

public comment period to solicit 

information from the public, 

government agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties on the delineation of, 

threats to, and status of the Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale including: (1) 

Historical and current distribution, 

abundance, and population trends; (2) 

life history and biological information 

including adaptations to ecological 

settings, genetic analyses to assess 

paternal contribution and population 

connectivity, and movement patterns to 

determine population mixing; (3) 

management measures and regulatory 

mechanisms designed to protect the 

species; (4) any current or planned 

activities that may adversely impact the 

species; and (5) ongoing or planned 

efforts to protect and restore the species 

and habitat. We request that all 

information be accompanied by: (1) 

Supporting documentation such as 

maps, bibliographic references, or 

reprints of pertinent publications; and 

(2) the submitter’s name, address, and 

any association, institution, or business 

that the person represents. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and NMFS’ 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.11(b)) require that a listing 

determination be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data, without consideration 

of possible economic or other impacts of 

the determination. During the 60-day 

public comment period we are seeking 

information related only to the status of 

the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references is 

available upon request from the 

Southeast Regional Office, Protected 

Resource Division (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 31, 2015. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator for Regulatory 

Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07836 Filed 4–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS