100458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

which would be defined as private, forprofit childcare or child-education 

organizations that serve one or more 

vulnerable populations with a high 

percentage of those populations 

represented in the children and families 

serviced. Sometimes there are no 

nonprofit childcare organizations in or 

near communities where there are 

children in need of Foster Grandparent 

services, but there are for-profit 

childcare organizations in the 

communities. Allowing childcare 

organizations to serve as volunteer 

stations, when there are not enough 

non-profit organizations, would help 

AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers, and 

particularly Foster Grandparent 

volunteers, provide services to more 

children and provide ways for those 

communities to receive the services they 

need. AmeriCorps therefore seeks public 

comment on whether to add for-profit 

child-care organizations to the list of 

organization types eligible to be a 

volunteer station, whether for-profit 

child-care organizations should be 

eligible to be a volunteer station only 

when there are no non-profit child-care 

organizations in or near the 

communities, and whether there is any 

basis for continuing to exclude them. 

4. Requirements for Insurance 

Current regulations require grantees 

(sponsors) to provide appropriate 

coverage for AmeriCorps Seniors 

volunteers, including accident 

insurance, personal liability insurance, 

and excess automobile liability 

insurance. See 45 CFR 2551.25, 2552.25, 

and 2553.25. The regulations explain 

each of these types of insurance and 

allow for reimbursement of costs 

associated with the insurance if grantees 

maintain the insurance at minimum 

levels set by AmeriCorps. See 45 CFR 

2551.46(b), 2552.46(b), and 2553.46(b). 

These insurance requirements are 

intended to help protect both volunteers 

and grantees in the event of accidents or 

injuries that might occur during an 

AmeriCorps Seniors volunteer’s service. 

However, insurance is not required by 

statute and some grantees find it 

challenging to secure it. AmeriCorps 

therefore seeks public comment on 

whether to remove the requirement for 

grantees to obtain insurance but retain 

insurance premiums as allowable costs 

for cost reimbursement should grantees 

choose to obtain the listed insurance 

types. 

Regulatory Analyses 

This ANPRM was developed in 

accordance with the principles of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ and E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review.’’ 

Since this action is an ANPRM, it does 

not create, or propose to create, any new 

requirements. Therefore, this regulatory 

action is not significant under section 

3(f) of E.O. 12866. 

The requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do 

not apply to this action because at this 

stage, it is an ANPRM and not a ‘‘rule’’ 

as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Following 

review of the comments received in 

response to this ANPRM, if AmeriCorps 

proceeds with a notice of proposed 

rulemaking regarding this matter, 

AmeriCorps will conduct all relevant 

analyses as required by statute or 

Executive Order. 

Andrea Grill, 

Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28765 Filed 12–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No.: 241206–0316; RTID 0648– 

XR136] 

Endangered and Threatened Fish and 

Wildlife; Description of the Western 

North Pacific Gray Whale Distinct 

Population Segment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a revision to 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to 

update the description of the western 

North Pacific gray whale distinct 

population segment (DPS) under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 

in light of the best available science. 

The proposed revision is informed by 

our recently completed 5-year review 

and a DPS analysis prepared by a Status 

Review Team. We do not propose to 

change the ESA-listing status of western 

North Pacific gray whales, which are 

classified as an endangered species. 

DATES: Comments and information 

regarding the proposed rule must be 

received by January 13, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: A plain language summary 

of this proposed rule is available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

NOAA-NMFS-2024-0095. You may 

submit comments, information, or data 

on this document, identified by docket 

number NOAA–NMFS–2024–0095, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the above docket number for this 

document. Then, click on the Search 

icon. On the resulting web page, click 

the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written information to 

Megan Wallen, NMFS West Coast 

Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 

Seattle, WA 98115. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. 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. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on https://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

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

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

The western North Pacific gray whale 

DPS analysis (Weller et al. 2023) and the 

5-year review of the DPS (NMFS 2023) 

are both available to access on our 

website at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/ 

document/dps-analysis-western-northpacific-gray-whales-under-esa and 

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

resource/document/western-northpacific-dps-gray-whale-5-year-review, 

respectively. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Wallen, Protected Resources 

Division, West Coast Region, 206–473– 

0812, megan.wallen@noaa.gov, 

Adrienne Lohe, Endangered Species 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

301–427–8442, adrienne.lohe@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) jointly administer the 

ESA, with NMFS having jurisdiction 

over most marine species, and FWS 

having jurisdiction over terrestrial 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 100459 

species. NMFS and FWS make 

determinations as to the endangered or 

threatened status of species under ESA 

section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1533). The ESA 

defines ‘‘species’’ as including 

subspecies, and, for vertebrates only, 

‘‘distinct population segments’’ (DPSs). 

16 U.S.C. 1532(16). NMFS and FWS’s 

joint Policy Regarding the Recognition 

of Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments Under the Endangered 

Species Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996) (DPS Policy) clarifies the 

agencies’ interpretation of the phrase 

‘‘distinct population segment’’ for 

purposes of listing, delisting, and 

classifying species under the ESA. 

Regulations identifying the species 

under NMFS’s jurisdiction that are 

listed as threatened or endangered are 

published at 50 CFR 223.102 

(threatened species) and 50 CFR 224.101 

(endangered species). The FWS 

maintains master lists of all threatened 

and endangered species, i.e., species 

under both NMFS’s jurisdiction and 

species under FWS’ jurisdiction, at 50 

CFR 17.11 (threatened and endangered 

animals) and 50 CFR 17.12 (threatened 

and endangered plants). The ESA 

requires NMFS and FWS to review the 

status of each listed species at least once 

every 5 years to determine whether the 

listing remains accurate (16 U.S.C. 

1533(c)(2)). Recently, we completed a 5- 

year review of the status of the western 

North Pacific (WNP) DPS of gray whales 

(NMFS 2023). Because WNP gray 

whales were listed as a DPS prior to 

NMFS and FWS’s issuance of the DPS 

Policy, and because new information 

pertinent to gray whale stock structure 

had become available, NMFS also 

convened a Status Review Team (SRT) 

composed of NMFS scientists with 

relevant expertise to evaluate WNP gray 

whale classification in light of the 1996 

DPS Policy. The SRT’s full analysis and 

conclusions are provided in Weller et 

al. (2023, see ADDRESSES) and 

summarized in this proposed rule. 

WNP gray whales were originally 

listed in 1970, when NMFS listed the 

entire Pacific Ocean population of gray 

whales as an endangered species (35 FR 

18309, December 2, 1970). In 1993, 

NMFS determined that the eastern 

North Pacific (ENP) gray whale 

population had recovered to preexploitation levels and should be 

delisted (58 FR 3121, January 7, 1993). 

ENP gray whales are those that migrate 

between wintering areas in Baja 

California, Mexico, and summer feeding 

areas in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, 

except for a small subset of whales that 

summer and feed along the Pacific coast 

between Kodiak Island, Alaska and 

northern California (Carretta et al. 

2023). NMFS also determined that there 

was a geographically separate WNP gray 

whale population, which had not 

recovered and should remain classified 

as ‘‘endangered.’’ The WNP gray whale 

DPS is currently listed as ‘‘endangered,’’ 

and is described in the CFR as ‘‘western 

North Pacific (Korean) gray whales’’ (50 

CFR 224.101(h)). There is no designated 

critical habitat for WNP gray whales. 

Since WNP gray whales were first 

listed as a DPS in 1993, new 

information has been developed about 

the species’ migratory patterns and 

range, including information 

demonstrating that some WNP gray 

whales transit the Pacific Ocean and 

overlap with part of the ENP gray whale 

migration. However, genetic, ecological, 

ranging, and behavioral differences exist 

supporting designation of the ENP and 

WNP as separate species under the ESA 

(Weller et al. 2023). The SRT was asked 

to assess whether the description of the 

WNP gray whale DPS as currently listed 

remains accurate in light of the best 

currently available science. The SRT 

was also tasked with evaluating whether 

WNP gray whales meet the criteria for 

designation as a DPS under our DPS 

Policy. The SRT found that within the 

WNP, three gray whale units met the 

DPS policy criteria of discreteness and 

significance: (1) a unit comprising gray 

whales that spend their entire lives in 

the WNP, (2) a unit comprising gray 

whales that feed in the WNP in the 

summer and fall and migrate to the ENP 

in the winter, and (3) a unit including 

both (1) and (2) combined as a single 

unit. 

Under the DPS Policy, two criteria are 

considered when determining whether a 

vertebrate population segment qualifies 

as a DPS: (1) the discreteness of the of 

the population segment in relation to 

the remainder of the species to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs (61 FR 4722, February 

7, 1996). Both criteria must be met in 

order for a population segment to be 

considered a DPS. A population 

segment may be considered discrete if it 

is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors; or if it 

is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist. 

Genetic differences between the 

population segments being considered 

may be used to evaluate discreteness. 

The SRT concluded that each of the 

three units of gray whales within the 

WNP being evaluated were markedly 

separate from (a) one another (for the 

WNP-only and WNP–ENP units) and (b) 

ENP gray whales (for all three units) as 

a result of behavioral and ecological 

factors. These include different 

migratory routes, strong matrilineal site 

fidelity to WNP feeding grounds, and 

use of different biogeographical realms 

for all or part of their life cycle. The 

WNP-only unit shows seasonal 

movements restricted to the WNP, 

where they migrate through and 

overwinter in areas where the bottom 

topography is characterized by a broad 

continental shelf. In contrast, the WNP– 

ENP unit and the ENP whales are 

observed in ENP waters, where the 

continental shelf is generally narrow 

with deeper water found close to shore, 

during the winter or early spring 

months (e.g., wintering lagoons in 

Mexico or along the U.S. and Canadian 

west coast). Both the WNP-only and the 

WNP–ENP units (and thus the 

combined WNP-only + WNP–ENP unit) 

show matrilineal site fidelity to the 

Sakhalin feeding ground in the WNP, 

which results in patterns of differential 

habitat (or biogeographical realm) use 

when any of these units are compared 

to the ENP whales that use feeding 

grounds in the Arctic and/or the 

temperate North Pacific. In total, these 

factors provide strong evidence for 

behavioral separation between the three 

WNP units, supporting the discreteness 

of the three units. In addition, there is 

some evidence for whales primarily 

breeding within their unit based on 

genetic differentiation and/or the known 

timing of reproduction and migration 

(Weller et al. 2023). Nuclear genetic 

differentiation supports separation of 

the combined WNP-only + WNP–ENP 

unit, as well as the WNP–ENP unit 

alone, from the broader ENP gray whale 

population, suggesting a lack of 

substantial interbreeding between either 

of these two WNP units and the ENP 

gray whale population. Additionally, 

while mating behavior has been 

observed on the wintering grounds, 

migration route, and feeding grounds, 

the primary mating period is estimated 

to occur between late November and 

mid-December, when gray whales 

would typically be at the start of their 

migration from feeding to wintering 

areas. Given that the WNP-only and 

WNP–ENP whales use different 

migratory routes and wintering grounds, 

and the WNP–ENP whales would likely 

still be west of the main ENP migratory 

corridor, spatial overlap between the 

WNP-only and WNP–ENP units or 

between either of those units (and thus 

the combined unit) and the ENP whales 

would likely be minimal during this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
100460 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

time period. Therefore, the evidence is 

consistent with a lack of substantial 

interbreeding with another unit, 

supporting the discreteness of the three 

WNP units. NMFS finds that the 

evidence presented by the SRT 

described here supports the discreteness 

of the three WNP units under the DPS 

policy. 

If a population segment is considered 

discrete, its biological and ecological 

significance is then evaluated in terms 

of the importance of the population 

segment to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Some of the considerations that 

can be used to determine a discrete 

population segment’s significance to the 

taxon as a whole include: (1) persistence 

of the population segment in an unusual 

or unique ecological setting; (2) 

evidence that loss of the population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon; and (3) 

evidence that the population segment 

differs markedly from other populations 

of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. After considering the 

best available information, the SRT 

concluded that each of the three WNP 

units is significant to the taxon largely 

as a result of two factors: (1) that loss 

of the unit would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the species and (2) 

marked differences in biological and 

ecological factors, which include 

differences in behavioral or cultural 

diversity of each unit (Weller et al. 

2023). Given the differences between 

the three WNP units in their geographic 

range and migration patterns, the SRT 

concluded that the loss of any of the 

three units would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon. In 

particular, if the WNP-only unit were 

extirpated, the western migratory routes 

and wintering ground would 

presumably no longer be occupied by 

the taxon, leading to the loss of a 

substantial portion of the range of North 

Pacific gray whales. While these areas 

are currently used by a relatively small 

fraction of the gray whales in the North 

Pacific, evidence suggests these regions 

historically supported much larger 

numbers of gray whales. While the 

range of the WNP–ENP unit overlaps in 

part with that of ENP whales, they 

represent a large proportion of the 

whales that feed in the WNP and thus 

their loss would result in a substantial 

decline in the number of whales using 

western Pacific feeding areas and an 

increased risk of loss of gray whales in 

this part of the range. With the loss of 

the combined unit, gray whales would 

be limited to ENP waters and the Arctic 

feeding grounds with no presence in the 

entire WNP region. Of the three WNP 

units, the combined unit had the 

strongest support for significance, 

because the full range of all WNP gray 

whales would be lost with the loss of 

the combined unit. 

The SRT also found strong evidence 

of significance of each of the three units 

based on evidence of behavioral 

differences relating to their differential 

migration patterns. These differences 

result in variation in bioenergetic costs, 

predation pressure, and exposure to 

anthropogenic risks among units and 

may have led to the development of 

unique adaptations among the WNPonly and WNP–ENP units when 

compared to each other and to ENP gray 

whales. Energy requirements are 

estimated to be greater for whales in the 

WNP-only and WNP–ENP units than for 

ENP gray whales (migrating between 

Mexico and the Arctic feeding grounds) 

due to the longer migration distance of 

WNP–ENP whales and higher metabolic 

costs for overwintering in the WNP. 

Additionally, while all units are known 

targets for killer whale attacks, gray 

whales identified off Sakhalin Island 

have the highest reported prevalence of 

killer whale-associated scars in a baleen 

whale population, with gray whales in 

the ENP showing a lower prevalence of 

killer whale scars, suggesting strong 

differences in predation pressure. Gray 

whales do not occupy any other ocean 

basin, so gray whales in the WNP are 

likely important to the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

species as a whole, particularly as this 

is an area predicted to change 

dramatically due to climate change. 

Significance of the ecological setting 

and genetic differentiation received less 

support due to uncertainty and a lack of 

applicable data. After reviewing the best 

available information and conclusions 

of the SRT, we agree that each of the 

three population segments meets the 

significance criterion of the DPS policy. 

Given the outcome of their analysis, 

the SRT agreed that there are two 

mutually exclusive options for 

recommending a DPS listing that 

include: (1) a Separate Option where the 

WNP-only unit and the WNP–ENP unit 

are separate DPSs, or (2) a Combined 

Option where the WNP-only unit and 

WNP–ENP unit are combined into a 

single unit (i.e., WNP-only + WNP–ENP 

unit) and considered one DPS (Weller et 

al. 2023). The SRT recommended the 

second option of designating a single 

unit, given the challenges with 

identifying and evaluating the status of 

and managing the otherwise separate 

units of gray whales under the ESA, 

such as estimating abundance and 

trends, survival, and evaluating 

recovery (Weller et al. 2023). The DPS 

composition as recommended by the 

SRT includes WNP whales that spend 

their entire life in the WNP and those 

that feed in the WNP in the summer and 

fall and migrate to the ENP in the 

winter. The SRT concluded that ‘‘the 

most practicable means of obtaining 

positive management outcomes is to 

combine the units into a single DPS,’’ 

given the challenges mentioned above 

(Weller et al. 2023). Based on the 

recommendations of the SRT, and the 

lines of evidence leading to the 

combined unit meeting the DPS criteria, 

NMFS has determined that WNP gray 

whales should be defined as ‘‘gray 

whales that reside or feed in the western 

North Pacific in the waters of Vietnam, 

China, Japan, Korea (Republic of Korea 

and/or Democratic People’s Republic of 

Korea), or the Russian Far East, 

including southern and southeastern 

Kamchatka.’’ Under that definition, 

whales that have different wintering 

ground affiliations would be considered 

part of the same DPS, with members of 

the DPS spending summers in the WNP 

(off Sakhalin Island and southeastern 

Kamchatka Peninsula). 

Our 5-year review of the western 

North Pacific gray whale assessed the 

status of the DPS (using the DPS 

definition recommended by the SRT) 

and concluded in a recommendation 

that the DPS remain classified as 

endangered (see NMFS 2023 for detailed 

assessment). Therefore, we are not 

proposing to reclassify the DPS. 

As a result of the 5-year review and 

recommendations from the SRT 

regarding the DPS description, we 

conclude that the description of the 

listed entity should be updated in 

NMFS’ list and FWS’s master list. This 

proposed revision reflects an effort to 

more accurately represent the WNP gray 

whale DPS based on the best available 

science. We summarize the proposed 

revision below and provide the full text 

of the proposed updates to the listed 

species description at 50 CFR part 224 

in the regulatory text at the end of this 

Federal Register document. All public 

comments on this proposed revision 

will be considered prior to issuing any 

final rule. 

Endangered Species at 50 CFR 224.101 

Revision to Endangered Species 

Description 

Below we summarize the proposed 

revision to the description of our 

endangered species listed in 50 CFR 

224.101. Based on our recently 

completed DPS analysis and 5-year 

review of the status of the western North 

Pacific DPS of gray whales, the 

description of the endangered species 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 100461 

should be revised to account for more 

information on the population since its 

listing in 1994 (59 FR 31094, June 16, 

1994). These changes do not constitute 

a listing or delisting of the DPS, but 

simply a revision to reflect a more 

accurate description of the listed entity. 

We propose to revise the description 

of the listed entity to read: ‘‘Gray whales 

that reside or feed in the western North 

Pacific in the waters of Vietnam, China, 

Japan, Korea (Republic of Korea and/or 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), 

or the Russian Far East, including 

southern and southeastern Kamchatka’’. 

The change proposed for this DPS is to 

remove the word ‘‘Korean’’ from the 

description which doesn’t fully capture 

the geographic area occupied by the 

DPS. 

References 

Copies of previous Federal Register 

documents and related reference 

materials are available on the internet at 

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

gray-whale/conservation-management, 

or upon request (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Classification 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 

This proposed rule does not contain a 

collection of information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects 

and that a federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with the intent of 

the Administration and Congress to 

provide continuing and meaningful 

dialogue on issues of mutual State and 

Federal interest, this proposed rule will 

be shared with the relevant State 

agencies. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing 

actions. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

E.O. 13084 requires that if NMFS 

issues a regulation that significantly or 

uniquely affects the communities of 

Indian Tribal governments and imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

those communities, NMFS must consult 

with those governments or the Federal 

Government must provide the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by the Tribal 

governments. This proposed rule does 

not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments or communities. 

Accordingly, the requirements of 

section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply 

to this rulemaking. Nonetheless, given 

the recent decision to waive the MMPA 

moratorium on taking ENP gray whales 

to allow the Makah Indian Tribe to 

conduct a limited ceremonial and 

subsistence hunt (89 FR 51600, June 18, 

2024), we notified the Makah Tribe 

about the proposed changes and 

provided the opportunity for comments 

or concerns. We will continue to inform 

potentially affected Tribal governments, 

solicit their input, and coordinate on 

future management actions pertaining to 

western North Pacific gray whales. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Endangered and threatened 

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: December 9, 2024. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 

CFR part 224 as follows: 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADRAMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 224.101, amend the table in 

paragraph (h) by revising the entry for 

‘‘Whale, gray (Western North Pacific 

DPS)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
100462 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Critical 

habitat 

ESA 

rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

*******

Marine Mammals 

*******

Whale, gray 

(Western 

North Pacific 

DPS).

Eschrichtius robustus ..... Gray whales that reside or feed in the western 

North Pacific in the waters of Vietnam, 

China, Japan, Korea (Republic of Korea and/ 

or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), 

or the Russian Far East, including southern 

and southeastern Kamchatka.

35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970; 59 FR 31094, June 

16, 1994; [Insert Federal Register page 

where the document begins], [date of publication when published as a final rule].

NA NA 

*******

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and 

evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

[FR Doc. 2024–29235 Filed 12–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1