[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18899-18903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD621]


Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in 
the Gulf of Mexico

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.

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

[[Page 18900]]

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as 
amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil 
and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, notification is hereby given 
that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to bp Exploration 
and Production Inc. (bp) for the take of marine mammals incidental to 
geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).

DATES: The LOA is effective from April 1, 2024 through December 31, 
2024.

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are 
available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-oil-and-gas-industry-geophysical-survey-activity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call 
the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which: (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering (Level B harassment).
    On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to 
govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to 
geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry 
operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their 
behalf (collectively ``industry operators''), in U.S. waters of the GOM 
over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was 
based on our findings that the total taking from the specified 
activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the 
affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or 
stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 
2021.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et seq. allow for the issuance of 
LOAs to industry operators for the incidental take of marine mammals 
during geophysical survey activities and prescribe the permissible 
methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable 
adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat 
(often referred to as mitigation), as well as requirements pertaining 
to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 
217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that 
the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the 
total taking allowable under these regulations and a determination that 
the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small 
numbers.

Summary of Request and Analysis

    Bp plans to conduct a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node 
(OBN) and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) survey, a source test of 
the Gemini 8000 (Gemini source test), and a Seismic Apparition (SA) 
source test in the Thunder Horse protraction area. Approximate water 
depths of the survey area range from 1,450 to 2,350 meters (m). See 
section 1.1 of the LOA application for a map of the area.
    Bp anticipates using two source vessels, each towing conventional 
airgun sources consisting of 32 elements, with a total volume of 5,110 
cubic inches (in\3\) for the 3D OBN and DAS survey portion. Please see 
bp's application for additional detail.
    The Gemini source was not included in the acoustic exposure 
modeling developed in support of the rule. However, our rule 
anticipated the possibility of new and unusual technologies (NUT) and 
determined they would be evaluated on a case-by case basis (86 FR 5322, 
5442, January 19, 2021). This source was previously evaluated as a NUT 
in 2020 (prior to issuance of the 2021 final rule) pursuant to the 
requirements of NMFS' 2020 Biological Opinion on BOEM's Gulf of Mexico 
oil and gas program as well as the issuance of the rule. An associated 
report produced by Jasco Applied Sciences (Grooms et al., 2019) 
provides information related to the acoustic output of the Gemini 
source, which informs our evaluation here.
    The Gemini source operates on the same basic principles as a 
traditional airgun source in that it uses compressed air to create a 
bubble in the water column which then goes through a series of 
collapses and expansions creating primarily low-frequency sounds. 
However, the Gemini source consists of one physical element with two 
large chambers of 4,000 in\3\ each (total volume of 8,000 in\3\). This 
creates a larger bubble resulting in more of the energy being 
concentrated in low frequencies, with a fundamental frequency of 3.7 
Hertz. In addition to concentrating energy at lower frequencies, the 
Gemini source is expected to produce lower overall sound levels than 
the conventional airgun proxy source. The number of airguns in an array 
is highly influential on overall sound energy output, because the 
output increases approximately linearly with the number of airgun 
elements. In this case, because the same air volume is used to operate 
two very large guns, rather than tens of smaller guns, the array 
produces lower sound levels than a conventional array of equivalent 
total volume.
    The modeled distances described in the aforementioned Jasco report 
show expected per-pulse sound pressure level threshold distances to the 
160-dB level of 4.29 kilometers (km). When frequency-weighted, i.e., 
considering the low frequency output of the source relative to the 
hearing sensitivities of different marine mammal hearing groups, the 
estimated distance is decreased to approximately 1 km for the low-
frequency cetacean hearing group and to de minimis levels for mid- and 
high-frequency cetacean hearing groups, significantly less than 
comparable modeled distances for the proxy 72-

[[Page 18901]]

element, 8,000 in\3\ array evaluated in the rule.
    These factors lead to a conclusion that take by Level B harassment 
associated with use of the Gemini source would be less than would occur 
for a similar survey instead using the modeled airgun array as a sound 
source. Based on the foregoing, we have determined there will be no 
effects of a magnitude or intensity different from those evaluated in 
support of the rule. Moreover, use of modeling results relating to use 
of the 72 element, 8,000 in\3\ airgun array are expected to be 
significantly conservative as a proxy for use in evaluating potential 
impacts of use of the Gemini source.
    The SA source test option is considered an operational variation 
rather than a source variation, and would utilize traditional airgun 
source equipment. The test involves ``source densification,'' in which 
a greater number of pulses are produced per square kilometer, compared 
to the OBN/DAS survey. Each source vessel would tow six airgun strings 
firing within a 120 ms time window, but not simultaneously. On average, 
the OBN/DAS seismic survey source will be operated such that 400 pulses 
are produced per square kilometer whereas for the SA test, 
approximately 900 pulses are produced per square kilometer. This would 
increase the number of pulses created per day compared to the OBN/DAS 
survey. Because the sources and/or subarrays are not firing 
simultaneously, per-pulse output would not be of concern relative to 
the modeled proxy source. Regarding total pulses, the modeled coil 
survey configuration selected for use here (see below) had the highest 
number of simulated pulses of all modeled survey configurations 
(Zeddies et al., 2015). The SA source test is anticipated to produce a 
total of 101,558 pulses for the full, 9-day duration of the test 
(approximately 11,000 pulses per day), and in comparison the coil 
survey included 120,000 pulses over a 7-day simulation (approximately 
17,000 pulses per day). Note also that each pulse during the SA test 
would be from one subarray or string, each of which is approximately 
1,700 in\3\ volume, as compared with the simulated pulses from the 
modeled Coil survey which are from the full 72-element, 8,000 in\3\ 
proxy. In addition, this portion of the survey would cover a much 
smaller area of approximately 112 km\2\ compared to the 1,751-3,305 
km\2\ survey area covered by the OBN/DAS survey. We have determined 
that the SA test is not expected to cause effects beyond those 
considered through the rule, and that use of modeling results from a 
traditional airgun array as a proxy for take that may occur incidental 
to the SA source test is applicable.
    Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort 
proposed by bp in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take 
estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in 
the preamble (86 FR 5398, January 19, 2021). In order to generate the 
appropriate take numbers for authorization, the following information 
was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone \1\); 
(3) number of days; and (4) season.\2\ The acoustic exposure modeling 
performed in support of the rule provides 24-hour exposure estimates 
for each species, specific to each modeled survey type in each zone and 
season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, the GOM was 
divided into seven zones. Zone 1 is not included in the geographic 
scope of the rule.
    \2\ For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, seasons include 
winter (December-March) and summer (April-November).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No 3D OBN or DAS surveys were included in the modeled survey types, 
and use of existing proxies (i.e., two-dimensional (2D), 3D narrow-
azimuth (NAZ), 3D wide-azimuth (WAZ), Coil) is generally conservative 
for use in evaluation of 3D OBN and DAS survey effort, largely due to 
the greater area covered by the modeled proxies. Summary descriptions 
of these modeled survey geometries are available in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (83 FR 29220, June 22, 2018). Coil was selected as the 
best available proxy survey type in this case because the spatial 
coverage of the planned survey is most similar to the coil survey 
pattern.
    The planned 3D OBN and DAS surveys will use the same seismic source 
and are thus conducted at the same time. This will involve two source 
vessels. The coil survey pattern was assumed to cover approximately 144 
kilometers squared (km\2\) per day (compared with approximately 795 
km\2\, 199 km\2\, and 845 km\2\ per day for the 2D, 3D NAZ, and 3D WAZ 
survey patterns, respectively). Among the different parameters of the 
modeled survey patterns (e.g., area covered, line spacing, number of 
sources, shot interval, total simulated pulses), NMFS considers area 
covered per day to be most influential on daily modeled exposures 
exceeding Level B harassment criteria. Although bp is not proposing to 
perform a survey using the coil geometry, its planned 3D OBN and DAS 
survey is expected to cover approximately 55.1 km\2\ per day, meaning 
that the coil proxy is most representative of the effort planned by bp 
in terms of predicted Level B harassment exposures. In addition, all 
available acoustic exposure modeling results assume use of a 72-
element, 8,000 in\3\ array. Thus, as discussed above, estimated take 
numbers for this LOA are considered conservative due to differences 
between the acoustic source planned for use (32 element, 5,110 in\3\ 
airgun array, Gemini test, and SA test) and the proxy array modeled for 
the rule.
    The survey will include 69 days of sound source operation (60 days 
of traditional airgun array surveys and 9 days of testing). The survey 
plan includes 34 days within Zone 5 and 35 days within Zone 7. The 
seasonal distribution of survey days is not known in advance. 
Therefore, the take estimates for each species are based on the season 
that produces the greater value.
    For some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling 
yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when 
considered in light of other relevant information available during the 
rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The 
approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven 
modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages 
fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large 
area of each modeling zone. This can result in unrealistic projections 
regarding the likelihood of encountering particularly rare species and/
or species not expected to occur outside particular habitats. Thus, 
although the modeling conducted for the rule is a natural starting 
point for estimating take, our rule acknowledged that other information 
could be considered (e.g., 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021), discussing 
the need to provide flexibility and make efficient use of previous 
public and agency review of other information and identifying that 
additional public review is not necessary unless the model or inputs 
used differ substantively from those that were previously reviewed by 
NMFS and the public. For this survey, NMFS has other relevant 
information reviewed during the rulemaking that indicates use of the 
acoustic exposure modeling to generate a take estimate for Rice's 
whales and killer whales produces results inconsistent with what is 
known regarding their occurrence in the GOM. Accordingly, we have 
adjusted the calculated take estimates for those species as described 
below.
    NMFS' final rule described a ``core habitat area'' for Rice's 
whales (formerly

[[Page 18902]]

known as GOM Bryde's whales) \3\ located in the northeastern GOM in 
waters between 100 and 400 m depth along the continental shelf break 
(Rosel et al., 2016). However, whaling records suggest that Rice's 
whales historically had a broader distribution within similar habitat 
parameters throughout the GOM (Reeves et al., 2011; Rosel and Wilcox, 
2014). In addition, habitat-based density modeling has identified 
similar habitat (i.e., approximately 100 to 400 m water depths along 
the continental shelf break) as being potential Rice's whale habitat 
(Roberts et al., 2016; Garrison et al., 2023), and Rice's whales have 
been detected within this depth band throughout the GOM (Soldevilla et 
al., 2022, 2024). See discussion provided at, e.g., 83 FR 29228, June 
22, 2018; 83 FR 29280, June 22, 2018; 86 FR 5418, January 19, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The final rule refers to the GOM Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera 
edeni). These whales were subsequently described as a new species, 
Rice's whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the core habitat area, 
we expect that any such occurrence would be limited to the narrow band 
of suitable habitat described above (i.e., 100 to 400 m) and that, 
based on the few available records, these occurrences would be rare. 
Bp's planned activities will occur in water depths of approximately 
1,450 to 2,350 m in the central GOM. Thus, NMFS does not expect there 
to be the reasonable potential for take of Rice's whale in association 
with this survey and, accordingly, does not authorize take of Rice's 
whale through this LOA.
    Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM, 
typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts et al., 2015; 
Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006). As discussed in the final rule, the 
density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016) represent the output 
of models derived from multi-year observations and associated 
environmental parameters that incorporate corrections for detection 
bias. However, in the case of killer whales, the model is informed by 
few data, as indicated by the coefficient of variation associated with 
the abundance predicted by the model (0.41, the second-highest of any 
GOM species model; Roberts et al., 2016). The model's authors noted the 
expected non-uniform distribution of this rarely-encountered species 
(as discussed above) and expressed that, due to the limited data 
available to inform the model, it ``should be viewed cautiously'' 
(Roberts et al., 2015).
    NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992 to 2009 reported only 16 
sightings of killer whales, with an additional 3 encounters during more 
recent survey effort from 2017 to 2018 (Waring et al., 2013; https://www.boem.gov/gommapps). Two other species were also observed on fewer 
than 20 occasions during the 1992 to 2009 NOAA surveys (Fraser's 
dolphin and false killer whale).\4\ However, observational data 
collected by protected species observers (PSO) on industry geophysical 
survey vessels from 2002 to 2015 distinguish the killer whale in terms 
of rarity. During this period, killer whales were encountered on only 
10 occasions, whereas the next most rarely encountered species 
(Fraser's dolphin) was recorded on 69 occasions (Barkaszi and Kelly, 
2019). The false killer whale and pygmy killer whale were the next most 
rarely encountered species, with 110 records each. The killer whale was 
the species with the lowest detection frequency during each period over 
which PSO data were synthesized (2002 to 2008 and 2009 to 2015). This 
information qualitatively informed our rulemaking process, as discussed 
at 86 FR 5322 and 86 FR 5334 (January 19, 2021), and similarly informs 
our analysis here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ However, note that these species have been observed over a 
greater range of water depths in the GOM than have killer whales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rarity of encounter during seismic surveys is not likely to be 
the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike 
certain cryptic species with high detection bias, such as Kogia spp. or 
beaked whales, or deep-diving species with high availability bias, such 
as beaked whales or sperm whales, killer whales are typically available 
for detection when present and are easily observed. Roberts et al. 
(2015) stated that availability is not a major factor affecting 
detectability of killer whales from shipboard surveys, as they are not 
a particularly long-diving species. Baird et al. (2005) reported that 
mean dive durations for 41 fish-eating killer whales for dives greater 
than or equal to 1 minute in duration was 2.3 to 2.4 minutes, and 
Hooker et al. (2012) reported that killer whales spent 78 percent of 
their time at depths between 0 and 10 m. Similarly, Kvadsheim et al. 
(2012) reported data from a study of 4 killer whales, noting that the 
whales performed 20 times as many dives 1 to 30 m in depth than to 
deeper waters, with an average depth during those most common dives of 
approximately 3 m.
    In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species 
in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water. This 
survey would take place in deep waters that would overlap with depths 
in which killer whales typically occur. While this information is 
reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure 
modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with 
the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies 
mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less 
likely to occur. In addition, as noted above in relation to the general 
take estimation methodology, the assumed proxy source (72-element, 
8,000-in\3\ array) results in a significant overestimate of the actual 
potential for take to occur. NMFS' determination in reflection of the 
information discussed above, which informed the final rule, is that use 
of the generic acoustic exposure modeling results for killer whales 
will generally result in estimated take numbers that are inconsistent 
with the assumptions made in the rule regarding expected killer whale 
take (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021; 86 FR 5403, January 19, 2021).
    In past authorizations, NMFS has often addressed situations 
involving the low likelihood of encountering a rare species such as 
killer whales in the GOM through authorization of take of a single 
group of average size (i.e., representing a single potential 
encounter). See 83 FR 63268, December 7, 2018; 86 FR 29090, May 28, 
2021; 85 FR 55645, September 9, 2020. For the reasons expressed above, 
NMFS determined that a single encounter of killer whales is more likely 
than the model-generated estimates and has authorized take associated 
with a single group encounter (i.e., up to 7 animals).
    Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the 
level of taking authorized through the LOA is consistent with the 
findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations for 
the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. See table 1 in this 
notice and table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021).

Small Numbers Determination

    Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of 
marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed ``small numbers.'' In short, 
when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is 
available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up 
to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance 
estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken 
of a species or stock are small. For more information please see

[[Page 18903]]

NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in 
the final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
    The take numbers for authorization are determined as described 
above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the 
total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar 
ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of 
individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the 
total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that 
some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (see 86 
FR 5404, January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where 
appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that 
are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in 
table 1.
    This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers 
determinations through comparison with the best available abundance 
estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021; 86 FR 5391, 
January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the 
maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current 
stock assessment reports (SAR; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock) and model-predicted abundance information (https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/GOM/). For the latter, for taxa where a 
density surface model could be produced, we use the maximum mean 
seasonal (i.e., 3-month) abundance prediction for purposes of 
comparison as a precautionary smoothing of month-to-month fluctuations 
and in consideration of a corresponding lack of data in the literature 
regarding seasonal distribution of marine mammals in the GOM. 
Information supporting the small numbers determinations is provided in 
Table 1.

                                             Table 1--Take Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Abundance     Percent
                     Species                        Authorized take   Scaled take \1\       \2\       abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice's whale.....................................                  0              n/a            51            0
Sperm whale......................................                974              412         2,207         18.7
Kogia spp........................................            \3\ 398              120         4,373          3.3
Beaked whales....................................              5,002              505         3,768         13.4
Rough-toothed dolphin............................                880              252         4,853          5.2
Bottlenose dolphin...............................              2,939              843       176,108          0.5
Clymene dolphin..................................              2,429              697        11,895          5.9
Atlantic spotted dolphin.........................              1,171              336        74,785          0.4
Pantropical spotted dolphin......................             14,734            4,229       102,361          4.1
Spinner dolphin..................................              2,278              654        25,114          2.6
Striped dolphin..................................              1,038              298         5,229          5.7
Fraser's dolphin.................................                308               88         1,665          5.3
Risso's dolphin..................................                623              184         3,764          4.9
Melon-headed whale...............................              1,588              468         7,003          6.7
Pygmy killer whale...............................                485              143         2,126          6.7
False killer whale...............................                673              198         3,204          6.2
Killer whale.....................................                  7              n/a           267          2.6
Short-finned pilot whale.........................                366              108         1,981          5.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Scalar ratios were applied to ``Authorized Take'' values as described at 86 FR 5322 and 86 FR 5404 (January
  19, 2021) to derive scaled take numbers shown here.
\2\ Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take
  estimates is considered here to be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where
  a density surface model predicting abundance by month was produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was
  used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual abundance is available. For
  Rice's whale and the killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used.
\3\ Includes 24 takes by Level A harassment and 374 takes by Level B harassment. Scalar ratio is applied to
  takes by Level B harassment only; small numbers determination made on basis of scaled Level B harassment take
  plus authorized Level A harassment take.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of bp's proposed survey 
activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of 
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be 
taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (i.e., less than 
one-third of the best available abundance estimate) and therefore the 
taking is of no more than small numbers.

Authorization

    NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request 
is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable 
under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take 
authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, 
we have issued an LOA to bp authorizing the take of marine mammals 
incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.

    Dated: March 11, 2024.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-05468 Filed 3-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P