[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74711-74719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25984]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 216

[Docket No. 151113999-6950-02]
RIN 0648-BF55


Designating the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River Stock of 
Beluga Whales as a Depleted Stock Under the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA)

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, issue a final determination to designate the 
Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River Stock of beluga whales 
(Delphinapterus leucas) as a depleted stock of marine mammals pursuant 
to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This action is being taken 
as a result of a status review conducted by NMFS in response to a 
petition to designate a group of beluga whales in the western Sea of 
Okhotsk as a depleted stock. The biological evidence indicates that the 
group is a population stock as defined by the MMPA, and the stock is 
depleted as defined by the MMPA.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents, including the status review, 
the proposed rule, and a list of references cited in the final rule, 
are available via the Federal e-rulemaking Portal, at 
www.regulations.gov (search for Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-2015-0154), or at 
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/beluga-whale.html. Those documents are also available from NMFS at the 
following address: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Bettridge, 
[email protected], Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-
8402.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 115(a) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1383b(a)) allows interested 
parties to petition NMFS to initiate a status review to determine 
whether a species or stock of marine mammals should be designated as 
depleted. On April 23, 2014, we received a petition from the Animal 
Welfare Institute, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Cetacean Society 
International, and Earth Island Institute (petitioners) to ``designate 
the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales as depleted under 
the MMPA.'' We published a notification that the petition was available 
(79 FR 28879; May 20, 2014). After evaluating the petition, we 
determined that the petition contained substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (79 FR 44733; 
August 1, 2014). Following the determination that the petitioned action 
may be warranted, we convened a status review team and conducted a 
status review to evaluate

[[Page 74712]]

whether the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales is a 
population stock and, if so, whether that stock is depleted. On April 
5, 2016, we published a proposed rule to designate the Sakhalin Bay-
Nikolaya Bay-Amur River Stock of beluga whales as a depleted stock of 
marine mammals pursuant to the MMPA (81 FR 19542), and solicited 
comments from all interested parties including the public, other 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and 
environmental groups.

Authority

    Although the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga 
whales does not occur in waters under the jurisdiction of the United 
States, we have authority to designate the stock as depleted if we find 
that the stock is below its optimum sustainable population (OSP). 
Section 115(a) of the MMPA provides NMFS with the authority to 
designate ``a species or stock'' of marine mammals as depleted and sets 
forth the procedures the agency must follow to make such a designation. 
16 U.S.C. 1383b(a)(1). The MMPA defines ``depleted'' as any case in 
which: (1) NMFS determines that a species or population stock is below 
its optimum sustainable population; (2) a state to which authority has 
been delegated makes the same determination; or (3) a species or stock 
is listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). 16 U.S.C. 1362(1). These provisions draw no distinction between 
marine mammals based on their geographic location. Rather, NMFS' 
authority to designate as depleted a species or stock occurring outside 
of waters under the jurisdiction of the United States is supported by 
the express link to the ESA found in the MMPA's definition of 
``depleted.'' Species of marine mammals that occur outside of waters 
under the jurisdiction of the United States are regularly listed as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. Pursuant to the MMPA's 
definition of depleted, these species are automatically designated as 
depleted when they are listed under the ESA. The definition of 
depleted, therefore, demonstrates Congressional support for depleted 
designations for foreign marine mammals. NMFS' authority is also 
supported by the MMPA's import prohibition, which makes it ``unlawful 
to import into the United States any marine mammal if such mammal was . 
. . taken from a species or population stock which [NMFS] has, by 
regulation published in the Federal Register, designated as a depleted 
species or stock.'' Id. section 1372(b). By its plain terms, the import 
prohibition recognizes NMFS' authority to designate a species or stock 
that occurs outside of waters under the jurisdiction of the United 
States as depleted.
    NMFS has previously used its authority under section 115(a) to 
designate as depleted, two stocks of marine mammals that occur entirely 
outside of waters under the jurisdiction of the United States: The 
northeastern stock of offshore spotted dolphin and the eastern stock of 
spinner dolphin. See 58 FR 58285 (Nov. 1, 1993); 58 FR 45066 (Aug. 26, 
1993). NMFS believes that the exercise of this authority is consistent 
with Congress's intent in enacting the MMPA that marine mammal 
``species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish 
beyond the point at which they cease to be a significant functioning 
element in the ecosystem of which they are a part,'' and that ``they 
should be protected and encouraged to develop to the greatest extent 
feasible . . .'' 16 U.S.C. 1361.

Status Review

    A status review for the population stock of beluga whales addressed 
in this rule was conducted by a status review team (Bettridge et al., 
2016). The status review compiled and analyzed information on the 
stock's distribution, abundance, threats, and historic take from 
information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive 
literature search, and consultation with experts. The draft status 
review report was submitted to independent peer reviewers, and comments 
and information received from peer reviewers were addressed and 
incorporated as appropriate before finalizing the report.
    As required by the MMPA, we consulted with the Marine Mammal 
Commission (Commission) related to the petition to designate the 
Sakhalin Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales as a depleted population 
stock. In a letter dated December 7, 2015, the Commission recommended 
we take a precautionary approach and define the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River 
stock to include whales in Nikolaya Bay and promptly publish a proposed 
rule under section 115(a)(3)(D) of the MMPA to designate this stock as 
depleted.

Sea of Okhotsk Beluga Whales

    Beluga whales are found throughout much of the Sea of Okhotsk, 
including Shelikov Bay in the northeast and throughout the western Sea 
of Okhotsk including the Amur River estuary, the nearshore areas of 
Sakhalin Bay, in the large bays to the west (Nikolaya Bay, Ulbansky 
Bay, Tugursky Bay and Udskaya Bay), and among the Shantar Islands. Use 
of the bays and estuaries in the western Sea of Okhotsk is limited 
primarily to summer months when belugas may molt (Finley 1982) and give 
birth to and care for their calves (Sergeant and Brodie 1969). The 
whales move into the ice-covered offshore areas of the western Sea of 
Okhotsk in the winter (Melnikov 1999). In the status review and the 
preamble to the proposed rule, we refer to the beluga whales found in 
the Amur River estuary and the nearshore areas of Sakhalin Bay during 
summer as the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales.
    The preamble to the proposed rule summarized additional general 
background information on the Sea of Okhotsk beluga whales' natural 
history, range, reproduction, population structure, distribution, 
abundance, and threats. That information has not changed and is not 
repeated here.

Stock Determination

    The MMPA defines ``population stock'' as ``a group of marine 
mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial 
arrangement, that interbreed when mature'' (MMPA section 3(11)). NMFS' 
guidelines for assessing stocks of marine mammals (NMFS 2005) state 
that many different types of information can be used to identify 
stocks, reproductive isolation is proof of demographic isolation, and 
demographically isolated groups of marine mammals should be identified 
as separate stocks. NMFS has interpreted ``demographically isolated'' 
as ``demographically independent'' (see, for example, Weller et al., 
2013, Moore and Merrick (eds.) 2011), and recently updated the 
guidelines for assessing stocks of marine mammals to reflect this 
interpretation (NMFS 2016).
    NMFS considered the following lines of evidence regarding the 
Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales to answer the question of whether 
the group comprises a stock: (1) Genetic comparisons among the 
summering aggregations in the western Sea of Okhotsk; (2) movement data 
collected using satellite transmitters; and (3) geographical and 
ecological separation (site fidelity). This information was discussed 
in detail in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated 
here. In summary, multiple lines of evidence indicate that Sakhalin 
Bay-Amur River beluga whales are their own stock or are a stock that 
also includes whales that summer in Nikolaya Bay. The status review 
team's evaluation of whether the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River stock is 
discrete or includes whales in

[[Page 74713]]

Nikolaya Bay was almost evenly divided, based on the lines of evidence 
reviewed. Given the currently available information, it is equally 
plausible that the beluga whales in Nikolaya Bay are part of the 
demographically independent population stock of Sakhalin Bay-Amur River 
beluga whales than not. Including Nikolaya Bay in the delineation and 
description of the stock would be a more conservative and precautionary 
approach, as it would provide any protection afforded under the MMPA to 
the beluga whales in Sakhalin Bay-Amur River to those beluga whales in 
Nikolaya Bay.
    None of the information regarding the identification of the 
Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales as a 
population stock has changed since we published the proposed rule, and 
we received no new information through the public comment period that 
would cause us to reconsider our previous finding as reflected in the 
preamble to the proposed rule. Thus, all of the information contained 
in the preamble to the proposed rule with respect to identifying the 
Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River group of beluga whales as a 
population stock is reaffirmed in this final action. Therefore, based 
on the best scientific information available as presented in the status 
review report, the preamble to the proposed rule, and this final rule, 
NMFS is identifying the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River group of 
beluga whales as a population stock.

Depleted Determination

    Section 3(1)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(1)(A)) defines the term 
``depletion'' or ``depleted'' to include any case in which ``the 
Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the 
Committee of Scientific Advisors (CSA) on Marine Mammals . . . 
determines that a species or a population stock is below its optimum 
sustainable population.'' Section 3(9) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)) 
defines ``optimum sustainable population . . . with respect to any 
population stock, [as] the number of animals which will result in the 
maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind 
the carrying capacity [(K)] of the habitat and the health of the 
ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.'' NMFS' regulations 
at 50 CFR 216.3 clarify the definition of OSP as a population size that 
falls within a range from the population level of a given species or 
stock that is the largest supportable within the ecosystem (i.e., 
carrying capacity, or K) to its maximum net productivity level (MNPL). 
MNPL is the population abundance that results in the greatest net 
annual increment in population numbers resulting from additions to the 
population from reproduction, less losses due to natural mortality.
    A population stock below its MNPL is, by definition, below OSP and, 
thus, would be considered depleted under the MMPA. Historically, MNPL 
has been expressed as a range of values (between 50 and 70 percent of 
K) determined on a theoretical basis by estimating what stock size, in 
relation to the historical stock size, will produce the maximum net 
increase in population (42 FR 12010; March 1, 1977). In practice, NMFS 
has determined that stocks with populations under the mid-point of this 
range (i.e., 60 percent of K) are depleted (42 FR 64548, December 27, 
1977; 45 FR 72178, October 31, 1980; 53 FR 17888, May 18, 1988; 58 FR 
58285, November 1, 1993; 65 FR 34590, May 31, 2000; 69 FR 31321, June 
3, 2004). For stocks of marine mammals, including beluga whales, K is 
generally unknown. NMFS, therefore, has used the best estimate 
available of maximum historical abundance as a proxy for K (64 FR 
56298, October 19, 1999; 68 FR 4747, January 30, 2003; 69 FR 31321, 
June 3, 2004).
    One technique NMFS has employed to estimate maximum historical 
abundance is the back-calculation method, which assumes that the 
historic population was at equilibrium, and that the environment has 
not changed greatly. The back-calculation approach looks at the current 
population and then calculates historic carrying capacity based on how 
much the population has been reduced by anthropogenic actions. For 
example, the back-calculation approach was applied in the management of 
the subsistence hunt of the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock (73 FR 60976, 
October 15, 2008). The status review team concluded, and NMFS agrees, 
that the back-calculation technique is the most appropriate to use in 
determining the abundance of the stock relative to OSP. Therefore, the 
status review team analyzed the status of the stock relative to 
carrying capacity using a back-calculation method.
    The best available estimate of abundance beluga whales in the 
Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area is 3,961 (Reeves et al., 2011). The best 
available removal data for these whales are a time series of removals 
by hunt and live capture since 1915 (Shpak et al., 2011). It was not 
feasible to develop an estimate of any additional anthropogenic 
mortality on this population, however there is evidence that there are 
ongoing threats that continue to impact this population (Reeves et al., 
2011). These removal data, plus an estimate of the population's 
productivity, allow back-calculation of the historical carrying 
capacity (i.e., K) that probably existed prior to the beginning of the 
catch history. A population model was used to perform the necessary 
calculations. This analysis was presented in the status review report 
and in the preamble to the proposed rule. The analysis has not changed 
and is not repeated here. In summary, based on this analysis, we found 
that the population of whales in the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area is 
between 25.5 percent and 35 percent of its carrying capacity and 
therefore below its OSP (Bettridge et al., 2016).
    As noted above, in its OSP analysis, the status review team used a 
2009-2010 abundance estimate from only the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area 
because there was no current abundance estimate of the Nikolaya Bay 
region. However, because few animals are thought to be in Nikolaya Bay 
in the survey period compared to the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River, the 
estimate accounts for nearly all of the population (Shpak et al., 
2011). To conduct an OSP analysis for the combined group of Sakhalin 
Bay-Amur River and Nikolaya Bay whales, the team added 500 to the 
abundance estimate to account for Nikolaya Bay, and re-ran the model. 
The team determined that including Nikolaya Bay whales in the analysis 
would not change the estimate of K significantly; it would result in a 
slightly higher percentage of K (i.e., less depleted), but the 
population is still below OSP (i.e., less than 60% of K).
    None of the information presented in the preamble to the proposed 
rule regarding the abundance of the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur 
River stock relative to its carrying capacity or OSP has changed since 
we published the proposed rule, and we received no new information 
through the public comment period that would cause us to reconsider our 
previous analysis or finding as reflected in the preamble to the 
proposed rule. Thus, all of the information contained in the preamble 
to the proposed rule with respect to the depleted determination is 
reaffirmed in this final action. As such, based upon the best 
scientific information available as presented in the status review 
report, the preamble to the proposed rule, and this final rule, we find 
that the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales is 
below its OSP level, and designate the stock as a depleted stock under 
the MMPA. The depletion designation applies to all biological

[[Page 74714]]

members of the stock, regardless of whether those individuals are in 
the wild or in captivity.

Summary of Comments Received and Responses

    With the publication of the proposed rule for the designation of 
the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales as 
depleted under the MMPA on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19542), we announced a 
60-day public comment period that closed on June 6, 2016. During the 
public comment period we received a total of 125 written comments on 
the proposed rule. Commenters included the Commission, non-governmental 
organizations (Environmental Investigation Agency, Defenders of 
Wildlife and the Humane Society of the United States, Center for 
Biological Diversity, Animal Welfare Institute, Orca Rescues 
Foundation, Orca Network, and Georgia Aquarium); eight organizations or 
businesses (Northwest Biotechnology Company, Perkins Coie, Alliance of 
Marine Mammals Parks and Aquariums, Oceans of Fun, Gulfworld Marine 
Park, Zoomarine Italy, and Marineland Dolphin Adventure), and 111 
interested individuals (the majority of whom submitted variations of a 
form letter supportive of our proposed determination). We fully 
considered all comments received on the proposed rule in developing 
this final depleted determination of the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur 
River stock of beluga whales.
    Summaries of the substantive comments that we received concerning 
our proposed determination, and our responses to all of the significant 
issues they raise, are provided below. Comments of a similar nature 
were grouped together, where appropriate. In addition to the specific 
comments detailed below relating to the proposed determination, we also 
received comments expressing general support for or opposition to the 
proposed rule and comments conveying peer-reviewed journal articles, 
technical reports, and references to scientific literature regarding 
threats to the species and stock determination. Unless otherwise noted 
in our responses below, after thorough review, we concluded that the 
additional information received was either considered previously or did 
not alter our determinations regarding the status of the Sakhalin Bay-
Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales.
    Comment 1: Numerous commenters, including the Commission, voiced 
support that the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River beluga whale 
stock clearly meets the MMPA standards and urged NMFS to promptly 
finalize its proposal to designate the stock as ``depleted.'' The 
majority of these commenters noted that the depletion status would 
afford further protection to the belugas as the MMPA would prohibit the 
importation of these animals into the United States for the purposes of 
public display.
    Response: We acknowledge this comment and are finalizing the 
depleted designation for this stock as proposed. See the response to 
Comment 14 regarding additional protections afforded under this 
depleted designation.
    Comment 2: Some commenters were opposed to designating the Sakhalin 
Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River beluga whale stock as depleted under the 
MMPA. They noted that each year millions of people visit public display 
facilities to view marine mammals and these experiences provide a 
unique opportunity for conservation education that include increasing 
the awareness of the unique ecosystem where beluga whales are found and 
the many obstacles they face to survive in their natural environment, 
and provided several citations in support of their position. In 
addition, commenters stated that these facilities support scientific 
studies that would not be possible by studying the animals in the wild.
    Response: We recognize the value of public display of marine 
mammals for conservation education. However, in accordance with section 
3(1)(A) of the MMPA, we determine whether a stock is depleted based on 
its abundance relative to its OSP. Because we determined that the 
Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales is below 
its OSP, we are designating the stock as depleted under the MMPA. As a 
result of this determination, importation of beluga whales from this 
population (or their progeny) into the United States for the purpose of 
public display will now be prohibited.
    Comment 3: A number of commenters stated that NMFS does not have 
the authority to designate a foreign marine mammal population as a 
depleted stock under the MMPA, and thus does not have the authority to 
proceed with the proposed designation. These commenters further 
stressed that NMFS does not provide any legal or regulatory support to 
whether NMFS may designate foreign stocks as depleted. Other commenters 
asserted that the MMPA does grant NMFS the authority to designate 
stocks as depleted, even if they occur outside of waters under the 
jurisdiction of the United States, and that the original legislative 
intent further supports the conservative or precautionary policy that 
is at the heart of the MMPA. Commenters on both sides of the 
jurisdiction issue argued that the plain language of the MMPA, case 
law, precedent, and Congressional intent support their position.
    Response: The plain language of the MMPA and the regulatory 
framework it establishes for protecting marine mammals provide NMFS 
with the authority to designate any marine mammal stock or species as 
depleted, regardless of where the species or stock occurs. NMFS 
therefore agrees with those commenters who assert that NMFS has the 
authority to designate a foreign stock of marine mammals as depleted, 
and disagrees with those commenters who assert that the agency does not 
have that authority. NMFS refers commenters to the ``Authority'' 
section, above, for an explanation of its authority. Following are 
responses to specific arguments raised by commenters with respect to 
this issue.
    One commenter stated that ``[i]t is well established that the MMPA 
does not apply extraterritorially,'' citing U.S. v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 
996 (5th Cir. 1977). U.S. v. Mitchell held that the MMPA's prohibition 
on taking extends to the high seas but does not extend to the 
territorial waters of a foreign sovereign state; the opinion did not 
address the scope of NMFS' authority to designate a species or stock of 
marine mammals as depleted under section 115(a) of the Act. Although 
NMFS believes that it has the authority to designate any marine mammal 
stock or species as depleted regardless of geographic location, to the 
extent that commenters are arguing that NMFS' authority applies only up 
to the boundary of a foreign nation's territorial seas, NMFS notes that 
telemetry data from whales tagged in Sakhalin Bay and biological 
information about the whales' migratory behavior demonstrate that 
beluga whales from this stock travel hundreds of kilometers offshore, 
well beyond the territorial seas of Russia (Shpak et al., 2010, 2011, 
2012).
    Some commenters also asserted that the plain language of the ESA 
and the MMPA indicate that Congress intended the ESA--and not the 
MMPA--to be the regulatory system through which foreign marine mammals 
are protected. NMFS disagrees. The MMPA and the ESA are separate 
statutes with distinct frameworks for protecting and conserving marine 
mammals and threatened and endangered species, respectively. NMFS has 
the authority to list foreign species as threatened or endangered under 
the ESA, and NMFS also has the authority to designate foreign species 
or stocks as depleted

[[Page 74715]]

under the MMPA. For example, NMFS' authority under the MMPA is evident 
from the import prohibition, which makes it ``unlawful to import into 
the United States any marine mammal if such mammal was . . . taken from 
a species or population stock which [NMFS] has, by regulation published 
in the Federal Register, designated as a depleted species or stock.'' 
Id. section 1372(b)(3). By its plain terms, the import prohibition 
recognizes NMFS' authority to designate a species or stock that occurs 
outside of waters under the jurisdiction of the United States as 
depleted. Commenters' assertion that the MMPA's import prohibition 
applies only to marine mammals that are designated as depleted by 
virtue of an ESA listing is contrary to the plain meaning of this 
provision. See In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & 
Section 4(d) Rule Litigation, 720 F.3d 354, 360 (D.C. Cir. 2013) 
(determining that the protections of 16 U.S.C. 1372(b)(3) apply ``to 
all depleted species, regardless of how they achieve their depleted 
status'').
    Finally, with respect to precedent, NMFS has previously used its 
authority under section 115(a) to designate as depleted two stocks of 
dolphins that occur entirely outside of waters under the jurisdiction 
of the United States: The northeastern stock of offshore spotted 
dolphin and the eastern stock of spinner dolphin. See 58 FR 58285 (Nov. 
1, 1993); 58 FR 45066 (Aug. 26, 1993). Some commenters argued that 
NMFS' authority to designate these stocks as depleted was rooted in the 
``extreme and unique circumstances surrounding the regulatory structure 
in place with respect to these stocks'' in the eastern tropical Pacific 
Ocean (ETP). NMFS acknowledges that Congress amended the MMPA to 
include provisions specifically relating to the ETP. However, NMFS 
designated these stocks as depleted pursuant to section 115(a) of the 
Act, and not pursuant to any provision of the MMPA applicable only to 
the ETP. The depletion designations of these two stocks of dolphins 
therefore provide precedent for the current action.
    Comment 4: One commenter suggested that designating a foreign 
species as depleted under the MMPA ``. . . would set a harmful 
precedent that potentially establishes a dual-track regulation of 
imperiled species,'' and recommended that NMFS retract the proposed 
rule and instead consider any future petition brought under the ESA 
concerning the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River aggregation.
    Response: Section 115(b) of the MMPA outlines the steps that NMFS 
is required to take when petitioned to designate a species or stock as 
depleted. We have followed those steps, and concluded that a depleted 
designation is warranted for the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River 
stock of beluga whales. This final rule is being promulgated under the 
MMPA and we are not taking any action under the ESA at this time, but 
this does not preclude us from responding to any future petition to 
list the population under the ESA.
    Regarding the ``dual track'' regulation referenced by the 
commenter, a species that is listed as threatened or endangered under 
the ESA is automatically considered depleted under MMPA, but the 
converse is not true. Therefore, this MMPA depleted designation does 
not automatically result in any ESA protections. This depleted 
designation is not unprecedented; there are several species or stocks 
of marine mammals that have been determined to be depleted under the 
MMPA but are not listed under the ESA, such as the AT1 group of killer 
whales (69 FR 31321, June 3, 2004) and the Pribilof Island population 
of North Pacific fur seals (53 FR 17888, May 18, 1988).
    Comment 5: A number of commenters stated that NMFS has not 
satisfied its obligation to review and/or evaluate the best available 
scientific information with respect to the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-
Amur River population of beluga whales. Conversely, a number of 
commenters reiterated the Commission's comments that NMFS' status 
review is ``a well-written document that thoroughly analyzes the 
available information.''
    Response: We conducted a thorough review of the status of beluga 
whales in the Sea of Okhotsk. We reviewed all available scientific 
information contained in our files and in peer reviewed literature, as 
well as information provided by the petitioners and the public. Several 
commenters provided additional information during the proposed rule 
public comment period. The additional information received was either 
considered previously or did not alter our determinations regarding the 
status of the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga 
whales. The best scientific information available supports our 
determination that this stock of beluga whales should be designated as 
depleted.
    Comment 6: One commenter noted that the Commission and the 
Committee of Scientific Advisors (CSA) are ``. . . both domestic groups 
with no knowledge or authority over foreign species or stocks.'' In 
addition, NMFS does not provide an explanation for how the Commission 
formed the basis for its recommendation to designate the Sakhalin Bay-
Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock as depleted, or whether the Committee 
offered a similar recommendation or participated in the process at all.
    Response: The MMPA defines the term ``depleted'' as including any 
species or population stock that NMFS, after consultation with the 
Commission and its CSA on Marine Mammals, determines to be below its 
OSP. NMFS notes that this provision requires consultation with the 
Commission and its CSA; it does not provide the Commission with 
independent authority to designate a species or stock as depleted. 
Further, NMFS disagrees that the Commission and its CSA have no 
knowledge over foreign species. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 1402 (directing 
the Commission to recommend such steps as it deems necessary or 
desirable for the protection and conservation of marine mammals, to 
suggest appropriate international arrangements for the protection and 
conservation of marine mammals, and to recommend such revisions to the 
list of threatened and endangered species as may be appropriate with 
regard to marine mammals, among other duties).
    As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, we consulted with 
the Commission related to the petition to designate the Sakhalin Bay-
Amur River group of beluga whales as a depleted population stock. 
Review of the draft status review report by the Commission, in 
consultation with its CSA, constituted the consultation required by 
section 3(1)(A). We have confirmed that the Commission consulted with 
its CSA in making its recommendation. We are neither required to, nor 
are we in a position to explain, the basis for a recommendation by 
another federal agency.
    Comment 7: Some commenters claimed that NMFS has essentially 
changed Congress' definition of a stock. They state that the MMPA's 
definition of a ``population stock'' (i.e., ``a group of marine mammals 
of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, 
that interbreed when mature'' (MMPA section 3(11)), is consistent with 
the ``traditionally accepted scientific definition of a `population' 
(e.g., the community of potentially interbreeding individuals at a 
given locality, Mayr 1963).'' They disagree with NMFS' interpretation 
of ``interbreed when mature'' to include a ``group [that] migrates 
seasonally to a breeding ground where its members breed with members of 
the same group

[[Page 74716]]

as well as with members of other demographically distinct groups which 
have migrated to the same breeding ground from a different feeding 
ground.'' They state that NMFS' use of the terms demographically 
distinct, demographically independent, or demographically isolated 
groups is also scientifically incorrect and inappropriate (Cronin 2006, 
2007). They argue that while whales from different feeding grounds may 
be spatially separated for a period of time, they are not distinct, 
independent, or isolated breeding (i.e., demographic) groups.
    Response: We disagree that we have improperly changed the MMPA's 
definition of stock. The MMPA provides both biological and ecological 
guidance for defining marine mammal stocks. The biological guidance is 
in the definition of population stock: A group of marine mammals of the 
same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement that 
interbreed when mature (MMPA section 3(11)). The ecological guidance is 
addressed in the requirement that a stock be maintained as a 
functioning element of the ecosystem (MMPA section 2(2)). NMFS has 
developed guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks (GAMMS); the 
most recent revision to the GAMMS was made available for public comment 
and finalized in February 2016 (NMFS 2016). The GAMMS provide guidance 
on defining population stocks consistent with the MMPA. NMFS' approach 
to determining that beluga whales primarily occurring in the Sakhalin 
Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River area is a stock is consistent with the 
guidance provided in the GAMMS.
    For the purposes of management under the MMPA, NMFS recognizes a 
marine mammal stock as being a management unit that identifies a 
demographically independent biological population. We define 
demographic independence to mean that the population dynamics of the 
affected group is more a consequence of births and deaths within the 
group (internal dynamics) rather than immigration or emigration 
(external dynamics). Thus, the exchange of individuals between 
population stocks is not great enough to prevent the depletion of one 
of the populations as a result of increased mortality or lower birth 
rates (NMFS 2016). Mortality includes both natural and human-caused 
mortality and removals from the population.
    In our definition of demographic independence and in our 
interpretation of ``interbreed when mature'' we recognize that some 
interchange among groups may occur (i.e., demographic isolation is not 
required). Therefore, we find it to be valid to define stocks in which: 
(1) Mating occurs primarily among members of the same demographically 
independent group, or (2) the group migrates seasonally to a breeding 
ground where its members breed with members of the same group as well 
as with members of other demographically distinct groups which have 
migrated to the same breeding ground from a different feeding ground 
(Bettridge et al., 2016).
    Comment 8: One commenter alleged that in its review of the 
scientific data, NMFS selectively used data to support its conclusion, 
while ignoring other relevant, highly reliable data to the contrary. 
Specifically, the commenter argued that NMFS inappropriately dismissed 
the nuclear microsatellite DNA data and overemphasized the 
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data, thus, not considering the relevance of 
the nuclear DNA data to the primary issue of identification of 
interbreeding groups.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter. As documented in the 
status review and the preamble to the proposed rule, we evaluated all 
available scientific literature and all lines of evidence for and 
against demographic independence of Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur 
River beluga whales (see sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the status review 
report). Regarding the nuclear microsatellite DNA, we acknowledged in 
the preamble to the proposed rule that analysis of nuclear 
microsatellite markers found no evidence for genetic differentiation 
among the bays of the western Sea of Okhotsk with the exception of a 
comparison of Sakhalin Bay to the distant Ulbansky Bay (Meschersky and 
Yazykova 2012, Meschersky et al., 2013). The status review report 
explained that the lack of nuclear DNA differentiation among most 
summer feeding areas in the western Sea of Okhotsk (except between 
Sakhalin Bay-Amur River and the distant Ulbansky Bay; Meschersky and 
Yazykova 2012; Meschersky et al., 2013) is consistent with 
interbreeding between animals that aggregate in Sakhalin Bay and the 
other bays, and because these animals spend some parts of the year 
together (i.e., winter), it is plausible that recruitment into a summer 
aggregation could be both internal and external. However, we concluded 
the nuclear DNA data available to date are too weak, given the level of 
and design of the sampling, to assess how much internal versus external 
recruitment there is. Moreover, the status review team expressed 
concern about the adequacy of the sampling (most areas were sampled 
predominantly in one year, skewed towards males) and the microsatellite 
data quality. Meschersky and Yazykova (2012) did not provide sufficient 
information on data collection and analysis methods, so it was not 
possible to evaluate the quality of the microsatellite data. The 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) independent 
scientific review panel of beluga whale experts also considered the 
available nuclear DNA analyses and expressed concerns over the sampling 
design and methods (Reeves et al., 2011).
    Generally, significant differences in mtDNA haplotype frequencies 
are interpreted as sufficient evidence for demographic independence 
reflecting female philopatry. Stocks, including harbor seal stocks in 
the North Pacific (O'Corry-Crowe et al., 2003) and the humpback whale 
stock in the western North Atlantic (Palsb[oslash]ll et al., 2001, IWC 
2002), have been delineated based on mtDNA alone. See the response to 
Comment 9 regarding the strength of the mtDNA data and findings.
    Comment 9: A number of commenters asserted that based on the 
combined scientific findings from genetics, telemetry, and census 
(abundance) data, whales in the five bays, comprising the western 
region of the Sea of Okhotsk, constitute one stock. Specifically, the 
data show that the beluga whales from all of the bays of the western 
Sea of Okhotsk are an interbreeding group, and therefore are a single 
stock. One commenter cited the genetic studies of Meschersky et al. 
(2013) and Yazykova et al. (2012) as evidence that the summer 
aggregations in the five bays in the western Sea of Okhotsk are 
seasonal groups that belong to one breeding population. Another 
commenter stated that the large inter-annual differences in population 
estimates of beluga whales in the Shantar and Sakhalin regions (based 
on 2009 and 2010 aerial survey data cited in Shpak et al., 2011), 
``cannot be attributed to massive increases or decreases in isolated 
populations.'' Rather, the commenter asserts that these differences 
indicate the beluga whales move between summering areas, following 
salmon or other fish runs (Berzin et al., 1991, Trumble and Lajus 2008, 
Popov 1986). The commenter suggests, for example, that beluga whales 
move into the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area in odd years (such as 2009) 
when the runs of the oceanic race of pink salmon are much greater, and 
to bays in the Shantar region in even years when the salmon are less 
abundant in the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area. To support their 
discussion of inter-annual differences in abundance, the commenter used 
Shpak

[[Page 74717]]

et al.'s (2011) 2009 and 2010 aerial survey data and recalculated the 
abundance estimates using correction factors NMFS ``typically'' uses 
for beluga whales in Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2014).
    Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertion that the data 
indicate a single stock of beluga whales in the five bays of the 
Western Sea of Okhotsk. Regarding the genetic data referenced by the 
commenters, Meschersky et al. (2013) examined samples from Sakhalin 
Bay, Nikolaya Bay, Udskaya Bay, the northeastern Sea of Okhotsk on the 
west coast of the Kamtchatka Peninsula, and the Anadyr Estuary in the 
northwestern Bering Sea. All mtDNA comparisons that were made were 
significant (p < 0.00001), indicating significant haplotype frequency 
differences between Sakhalin Bay and Udskaya Bay (as well as between 
Sakhalin Bay and regions in the northern Sea of Okthosk and western 
Bering Sea). The level of mtDNA differentiation found is on par with 
comparisons among other recognized marine mammal stocks. Yazykova et 
al. (2012) used samples from all five bays in the southwestern Sea of 
Okhotsk (Sakhalin, Nikolaya, Ulbansky, Tugursky, and Udskaya). The 
sample size from Nikolaya Bay was very small (n=8). Sakhalin Bay showed 
significant mtDNA differences from all sampling locations except 
Nikolaya Bay. Overall, the mtDNA data in both studies indicate 
significant genetic differentiation between Sakhalin Bay and the other 
bays (except Nikolaya Bay where the sample size is very small). Thus, 
these data suggest that should one of these bays be depleted or locally 
extirpated, they are not likely to be repopulated by immigration from 
the remaining bays.
    For the microsatellite data, Meschersky et al. (2013) utilized nine 
microsatellite loci while Yazykova et al. (2012) added ten additional 
loci for a total of 19. In addition to concerns about sampling (one 
year, skewed towards males) as discussed in the status review and by 
the IUCN scientific panel and response to Comment 8 above, it is 
difficult to evaluate the microsatellite analyses of these two 
publications because they do not present adequate information on the 
analytical methods used to evaluate the quality of the microsatellite 
data. Information on standard tests commonly applied to evaluate the 
quality of microsatellite data prior to running any analyses (for 
example, tests for linkage disequilibrium and Hardy-Weinberg 
equilibrium) were not presented in either publication. The status 
review team discussed, for example, that Yazykova et al. (2012) 
indicate they used the microsatellite loci DlrFCB6 and DlrFCB17, yet 
these two loci are known to be the same. Standard data quality tests 
should have identified they were the same, and one of them should have 
been subsequently dropped from all analyses. Therefore, the 
microsatellite data set may contain significant errors that could lead 
to incorrect conclusions, and the status review team could not 
adequately evaluate these potential issues.
    NMFS believes the telemetry (tagging) data also supports our stock 
delineation, although we consider them to be weaker evidence, in part, 
because of the small number of tags. Furthermore, while the tag data 
reveal where animals move, they do not indicate whether interbreeding 
is occurring if/when animals from different stocks may overlap. 
However, NMFS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that ``[t]he 
telemetry data show there is significant movement of belugas among bays 
in the Sea of Okhotsk in autumn and other times of the year.'' Beluga 
whale movements from Sakhalin Bay to the Shantar region, mainly 
Nikolaya Bay, were recorded primarily in the fall and interpreted as 
the beginning of migration westward and then northwest into offshore 
waters for the winter. Shpak et al. (2010) reported that the four 
tagged whales moved from Sakhalin Bay to Nikolaya Bay, with a few 
detections in the very far southeastern edge of Ulbansky Bay adjacent 
to Nikolaya Bay, in the fall just prior to migrating further north into 
the open water of the Sea of Okhotsk (see Figure 3 of Shpak et al., 
2010). Tagging efforts to date do not present any evidence that the 
animals move farther west than that within the other bays (i.e., into 
Tugursky Bay or Udskaya Bay). As discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, although not very many whales have been tagged, the data 
available to date suggest whales present in the summer in Sakhalin Bay 
also use Nikolaya Bay, but there is little evidence for movement 
between Sakhalin Bay and the other bays further to the west during 
spring and summer.
    Regarding census (abundance) data, one commenter speculated that 
the inter-annual differences in population estimates in the Shantar and 
Sakhalin-Amur regions are not a result of increases (or decreases) in 
insolated populations, but, rather, indicate that beluga whales move 
from one region to another. In support of their argument, the commenter 
recalculated Shpak et al.'s (2011) abundance estimates from the 2009 
and 2010 aerial surveys by using correction factors NMFS ``typically'' 
uses for beluga whales in Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2014). However, 
NMFS does not apply any ``typical'' correction factor to estimate 
beluga abundance. The corrections, to account for animals during 
surveys that were missed either because the animals are submerged or 
too small to be seen, are dependent on the survey conditions (such as 
altitude, air speed, ice conditions, and water clarity) and therefore 
vary. The correction factors used by the commenter, 2.62 (to account 
for diving animals) and 1.18 (to account for newborns and yearlings not 
observed due to their small size and dark coloration), were developed 
respectively, for Bristol Bay (Frost and Lowry 1995) and Cumberland 
Sound, Baffin Island (Brodie 1971). In cases when conditions were 
similar, NMFS has used these correction factors for other areas in 
Alaska (e.g., Eastern Chuckchi Sea and Eastern Bering Sea), while in 
other cases we have used correction factors of 2 (e.g., the Beaufort 
Sea), or have used an analysis of video tape or regression of counts to 
correct for availability and sightability (e.g., Cook Inlet) (Allen and 
Angliss 2015). The commenter has not demonstrated that the survey 
conditions in this region were sufficiently similar to those in Bristol 
Bay or Cumberland Sound. Further, both Shpak et al. (2011) and Reeves 
et al. (2011) considered using a correction factor of 2 to be 
appropriate.
    The commenter also discussed the relative abundance of beluga 
whales in the Sakhalin-Amur and Shantar regions. Regardless of which 
correction factors are used, the Sakhalin-Amur aggregation represents 
59 percent of the total estimated number of beluga whales in the two 
regions in 2009 and 33 percent in 2010. The commenter asserted that the 
inter-annual differences in abundance are due to shifting of belugas 
from one region to another, which it states may be in large part due to 
the variation in salmon or other fish runs. The commenter cited Berzin 
et al. 1991, Trumble and Lajus 2008, and Popov 1986 in support, but did 
not include a copy of these papers with the comment letter. We searched 
but were unable to obtain copies of Berzin et al. (1991) and Popov 
(1986). However, we reviewed Trumble and Lajus (2008) and the 
commenter's description of the findings from the two unavailable 
papers.
    As stated in the status review, we acknowledge that summer 
aggregations of beluga whales often focus on seasonally available fish 
runs, like salmon runs. However, we do not agree that the abundance 
data indicate a single stock of beluga whales moving between regions. 
We evaluated the

[[Page 74718]]

abundance information, including the information provided by the 
commenters. Based on the estimates of abundance and associated 
statistical error presented in Shpak and Glazov (2013, Table 4), there 
is a 31 percent difference between the abundance in 2009 and the lower 
of the two abundance estimates in 2010 in the Sakhalin-Amur 
aggregation. We conclude that the difference can be explained by the 
statistical uncertainty of the abundance estimates. Thus, the 
difference between the estimates can be attributed to sampling error 
between surveys and NMFS finds no reason, based on our analysis of the 
abundance information, to reject the status review team's conclusion 
that the population in the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River area is a distinct 
stock.
    Based upon the above, we cannot conclude that all beluga whales 
from the five western bays in the Sea of Okhotsk belong to a single 
demographically independent population; the best scientific information 
available supports our conclusion that the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-
Amur River population of beluga whales is a stock. Multiple lines of 
evidence support this conclusion, including mtDNA differentiation, 
movement data, geographical/ecological separation, and similarity to 
other examples of MMPA stock designations outlined in the status review 
report (e.g., beluga whales in Alaska). Our conclusion is largely 
consistent with that of the 2011 IUCN independent scientific review 
panel (Reeves et al., 2011) regarding the unit to conserve.
    Comment 10: Many commenters supported the Commission's 
recommendation for NMFS to take a precautionary approach to include 
Nikolaya Bay and designate the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River 
distinct stock of beluga whales as depleted under the MMPA.
    Response: We acknowledge this comment and are including beluga 
whales in Nikolaya Bay in the stock being designated as depleted.
    Comment 11: Several commenters asserted that comparable inferences 
from the better studied beluga whale populations of Canada's Hudson Bay 
support NMFS' conclusions on mtDNA and geographic and ecological 
separation along maternal lines to delineate the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya 
Bay-Amur River population as a stock.
    Response: We acknowledge this comment but clarify that we relied on 
multiple lines of evidence to identify the stock, including genetic, 
telemetry, and movement data.
    Comment 12: A number of commenters argued that designating the 
Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock as depleted would be 
perceived by Russia that the United States does not approve of its 
management of the species, and would actually impede efforts to 
conserve beluga populations in Russian waters.
    Response: We were petitioned under section 115 of the MMPA to 
evaluate whether the beluga whales in the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River 
region are depleted. We do not have the discretion to consider 
political factors in the analysis of whether a stock is below its OSP 
level and a depleted designation is warranted.
    Comment 13: Several commenters asserted that the Sakhalin Bay-Amur 
River stock is below its OSP level and clearly depleted, and including 
Nikolaya Bay does not change NMFS' depletion finding.
    Response: We acknowledge this comment and are finalizing the 
designation of the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga 
whales as depleted.
    Comment 14: Many commenters claimed that the depleted finding would 
provide the stock greater protection against further decline. One noted 
that a depleted designation would help promote the goals of the MMPA by 
helping to recover the population thereby protecting the health and 
stability of the marine ecosystem.
    Response: NMFS notes that although we do not manage this foreign 
stock directly, this depleted designation prohibits importation of 
whales from this stock into the United States for the purpose of public 
display, which may partially address the threat of the live-capture 
trade by reducing demand. This is consistent with our 2013 denial of 
the Georgia Aquarium's application for a permit to import 18 beluga 
whales from this population into the United States, in which we found 
that ongoing, legal marine mammal capture operations in Russia are 
expected to continue, and issuance of the permit would have contributed 
to the demand to capture belugas from this stock for the purpose of 
public display worldwide, resulting in the future taking of additional 
belugas from this stock.
    The MMPA requires NMFS to prepare a conservation plan and restore 
any stock designated as depleted to its OSP level, unless NMFS 
determines that such a plan would not promote the conservation of the 
stock. We have determined that a conservation plan would not further 
promote the conservation of the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River 
stock of beluga whales given that NMFS does not manage the stock, and 
therefore do not plan to implement a conservation plan. However, as 
noted above, by prohibiting the importation of Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya 
Bay-Amur River beluga whales into the United States for the purpose of 
public display, this depleted designation will provide intrinsic 
conservation benefits that may reduce the impacts of live captures to 
this stock.
    Comment 15: Some commenters recommended additional genetic and 
environmental research in the Sea of Okhotsk, to better define and 
manage the population's recovery.
    Response: We agree that such research would be beneficial. Such 
research was also recommended by the Commission in its consultation 
with us, and by the IUCN panel (Reeves et al., 2011).
    Comment 16: One commenter noted that according to new data from the 
United Nations Environment Programme's World Conservation Monitoring 
Center, at least 37 live beluga whales, likely from the Sakhalin Bay-
Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock, were exported from Russia in 2014, and 
emphasized that the level of these live exports alone continues to 
exceed its potential biological removal level (PBR).
    Response: We recognize that live captures are a continuing threat 
to this stock, but our evaluation of the stock's status did not 
consider PBR. Rather, we evaluated the stock's abundance relative to 
carrying capacity to determine whether the population was below its OSP 
level.
    Comment 17: Some commenters cited new information documenting that 
unsustainable live removals for public display, mortality incidental to 
these captures, and pollution continue to contribute to the 
population's depletion. Other commenters noted that beluga whales from 
this population face threats from vessel strikes, entanglement and 
drowning, subsistence harvest, oil and gas development, and climate 
change.
    Response: We appreciate the updated information provided by the 
commenters regarding live captures, measurements of persistent organic 
pollutants in tissue collected from beluga whales in the Sea of 
Okhotsk, and oil and gas development in the Sakhalin region. As we 
noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, information on potential 
sources of serious injury and mortality is limited for the Sea of 
Okhotsk beluga whales. The IUCN panel identified subsistence harvest, 
death during live capture for public display, entanglement in fishing 
gear, vessel strike, climate change, and pollution as human activities 
that may result in serious injury or mortality to Sea of Okhotsk beluga 
whales (Reeves et

[[Page 74719]]

al. 2011). The greatest amount of available information is from the 
estimates of annual take from the commercial hunt. As noted in the 
petition, the IUCN review, and the preamble to the proposed rule, 
monitoring of other types of mortality in the Sea of Okhotsk is low, if 
existent at all, and information on possible threats and sources of 
mortality in Sea of Okhotsk beluga whales is highlighted by a lack of 
substantiated data, and is largely anecdotal.
    As noted above, a direct result of this depleted designation is 
that importation of whales from this stock into the United States for 
purposes of public display is prohibited. This may reduce the impacts 
of live captures, but does not directly address the remaining threats 
to this population.

Classification

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Similar to ESA listing decisions, which are based solely on the 
best scientific and commercial information available, depleted 
designations under the MMPA are determined ``solely on the basis of the 
best scientific information available.'' 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A) and 16 
U.S.C. 1383b(a)(2). Because ESA listings are thus exempt from the 
requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(see NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.03(e)(1)), NMFS has determined 
that MMPA depleted designations are also exempt from the requirements 
of the National Environmental Policy Act. Thus, an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement is not required and none 
has been prepared for the depleted designation of this stock under the 
MMPA.
    When the proposed rule was published, the Chief Counsel for 
Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule would 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. (81 FR 19546, April 5, 2016). This rule designates a group of 
beluga whales in Russian waters (known as the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya 
Bay-Amur River group) as depleted; however, this rule would not, by 
itself, directly regulate the public, including any small entities. The 
MMPA authorizes NMFS to take certain actions to protect a stock that is 
designated as depleted. For example, a stock that is designated as 
depleted meets the definition of a strategic stock under the MMPA. 
Under provisions of the MMPA, a take reduction team must be established 
and a take reduction plan developed and implemented within certain time 
frames if a strategic stock of marine mammals interacts with a Category 
I or II commercial fishery. However, NMFS has not identified any 
interactions between commercial fisheries and this group of beluga 
whales that would result in such a requirement. In addition, under the 
MMPA, if NMFS determines that impacts on areas of ecological 
significance to marine mammals may be causing the decline or impeding 
the recovery of a strategic stock, it may develop and implement 
conservation or management measures to alleviate those impacts. 
However, NMFS has not identified information sufficient to make any 
such determination for this group of beluga whales. The MMPA also 
requires NMFS to prepare a conservation plan and restore any stock 
designated as depleted to its OSP, unless NMFS determines that such a 
plan would not promote the conservation of the stock. NMFS has 
determined that a conservation plan would not promote the conservation 
of the Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales and 
therefore does not plan to implement a conservation plan. In summary, 
this final rule will not directly regulate the public. If any 
subsequent restrictions placed on the public to protect the Sakhalin 
Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock of beluga whales are included in 
separate regulations, appropriate analyses under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act would be conducted during those rulemaking procedures.
    The MMPA prohibits the importation of any marine mammal designated 
as depleted for purposes of public display (see 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(3)(B) 
and 1372(b)). Therefore, this rule will have the indirect effect of 
prohibiting the future importation of any marine mammal from this stock 
into the United States for purposes of public display. There are 104 
facilities in the United States that house marine mammals for the 
purposes of public display. Of these, only six facilities house beluga 
whales. There are currently twenty-seven beluga whales at these 
facilities. None of these beluga whales were taken in the wild from the 
Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River stock; three whales are progeny of 
animals taken in the wild from this stock. NMFS receives very few 
requests to import beluga whales into the United States for purposes of 
public display and has no pending requests to import beluga whales for 
public display. NMFS notes the small number of U.S. entities that house 
beluga whales and the small number of beluga whales from this stock 
that are currently permitted for public display in the United States. 
Because this rule will not prevent an entity from requesting to import 
a beluga whale from a non-depleted stock for purposes of public 
display, NMFS found that this rule would not result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS invited 
comment from members of the public to provide any additional 
information on NMFS determination that the rule will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
NMFS did not receive any comment on this issue. As a result, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis for this final rule has been prepared.
    This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
    This final rule does not contain policies with federalism 
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism 
assessment under Executive Order 13132.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 216

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: October 24, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 216 is amended 
as follows:

PART 216--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE 
MAMMALS

0
1. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  216.15, add paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  216.15  Depleted species.

* * * * *
    (j) Sakhalin Bay-Nikolaya Bay-Amur River beluga whales 
(Delphinapterus leucas). The stock includes all beluga whales primarily 
occurring in, but not limited to, waters of Sakhalin Bay, Nikolaya Bay, 
and Amur River in the Sea of Okhotsk.

[FR Doc. 2016-25984 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P