Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices 34229 

workshop. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

DATES: The SEDAR Procedural 

Workshop 8 webinar II will be held 

Monday, July 19, 2021, from 10 a.m. 

until 12 p.m., Eastern. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held via webinar. The webinar is open 

to members of the public. Those 

interested in participating should 

contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below) to 

request an invitation providing webinar 

access information. Please request 

webinar invitations at least 24 hours in 

advance of each webinar. 

SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place 

Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 

29405. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: 

(843) 571–4366; email: Julie.neer@

safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multistep process including: (1) Data 

Workshop; (2) Assessment Process 

utilizing webinars; and (3) Review 

Workshop. The product of the Data 

Workshop is a data report that compiles 

and evaluates potential datasets and 

recommends which datasets are 

appropriate for assessment analyses. 

The product of the Assessment Process 

is a stock assessment report that 

describes the fisheries, evaluates the 

status of the stock, estimates biological 

benchmarks, projects future population 

conditions, and recommends research 

and monitoring needs. The assessment 

is independently peer reviewed at the 

Review Workshop. The product of the 

Review Workshop is a Summary 

documenting panel opinions regarding 

the strengths and weaknesses of the 

stock assessment and input data. 

Participants for SEDAR Workshops are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils and NOAA 

Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, 

HMS Management Division, and 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Participants include data collectors and 

database managers; stock assessment 

scientists, biologists, and researchers; 

constituency representatives including 

fishermen, environmentalists, and 

NGO’s; International experts; and staff 

of Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

The items of discussion for the 

webinar are as follows: 

Participants will discuss what data are 

available for use in SEDAR Procedural 

Workshop 8. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the intent to take final action 

to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to the 

Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 

10 business days prior to each 

workshop. 

Note: The times and sequence 

specified in this agenda are subject to 

change. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: June 24, 2021. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13878 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 210623–0137; RTID 0648– 

XY100] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 

90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

Harbor Seals in Iliamna Lake as a 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; 90-day petition finding. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- 

day finding on a petition to list the 

Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina 

richardii) in Iliamna Lake as threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and to designate 

critical habitat. We find that the petition 

and information readily available in our 

files does not present new information 

or analyses that had not been previously 

considered in our 2016 distinct 

population segment (DPS) assessment 

and petition finding and, therefore, the 

petition does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and 

related materials are available from the 

NMFS websites at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

endangered-species-conservation/ 

negative-90-day-findings or upon 

request from the Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, 

Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenna Malek, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–1332, Jenna.Malek@noaa.gov; 

Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 586–7638, Jon.Kurland@noaa.gov; 

or Adrienne Lohe, NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources, (301) 427–8442, 

Adrienne.Lohe@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 6, 2020, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) to list the harbor seals 

in Iliamna Lake, Alaska as a threatened 

or endangered species under the ESA 

and to designate critical habitat 

concurrent with listing. Under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), harbor seals in Alaska are 

divided into 12 separate stocks as 

described in NMFS’s Alaska Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments, 2019 

(https://repository.library.noaa.gov/ 

view/noaa/25642). Harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake are within the geographic 

range of the Bristol Bay harbor seal 

stock. 

CBD previously petitioned NMFS to 

list the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake as 

threatened or endangered in 2012. 

NMFS published a positive 90-day 

finding in 2013 and commenced a 

review to determine whether these seals 

were a ‘‘species’’ and if so whether 

listing was warranted (78 FR 29098; 

May 17, 2013). Per the joint NMFS–U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

(jointly, ‘‘the Services’’) policy that 

clarifies the agencies’ interpretation of 

the phrase ‘‘distinct population 

segment’’ (61 FR 4722; February 7, 

1996), when determining whether a 

population segment is a DPS, we 

consider both the discreteness and the 

significance of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
34230 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices 

species to which it belongs. After 

completing a DPS assessment, NMFS 

determined in 2016 that the discreteness 

of the seals was supported by the 

limited genetic information available. 

However, the evidence for discreteness 

based on physical, physiological, or 

ecological factors was unconvincing, 

and the available evidence based on 

behavioral factors was inconclusive. 

One of those behavioral considerations 

was the lack of any documentation of 

foraging behaviors outside what has 

been documented as normal harbor seal 

behavior. Regarding significance, we 

acknowledged that the year-round 

persistence of a discrete population of 

harbor seals in a freshwater lake is 

unusual for the subspecies, but we 

noted an absence of evidence suggesting 

the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake have 

adaptations to their environment that 

would benefit the taxon to which they 

belong. Thus, NMFS concluded that the 

harbor seals in Iliamna Lake were not 

significant in relation to the remainder 

of the species to which they belong and, 

therefore, listing the harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake was not warranted because 

they did not constitute a species, 

subspecies, or DPS under the ESA (81 

FR 81074; November 17, 2016). 

As in its 2012 petition, CBD maintains 

in its 2020 petition that the harbor seals 

found in Iliamna Lake constitute a DPS 

and refers to them in the petition as 

‘‘Iliamna Lake seals.’’ CBD asserts that 

the seals in Iliamna Lake face the 

following threats: (1) Habitat 

modification and disturbance associated 

with the Pebble Project (a proposed 

copper-gold-molybdenum porphyry 

mine located north of Iliamna Lake) and 

climate change; (2) disease and natural 

predation; (3) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms for addressing 

climate change or the Pebble Project; 

and (4) other natural and anthropogenic 

factors including risks of rarity, fishing 

and hunting, illegal feeding and 

harassment, oil and gas exploration and 

development, and contaminants. CBD 

concludes that the combination of being 

a small, isolated population with the 

identified threats qualifies the seals in 

Iliamna Lake for listing as a threatened 

or endangered species under the ESA. 

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 

Provisions and Evaluation Framework 

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

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

requires, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that within 90 days of 

receipt of a petition to list a species as 

threatened or endangered, the Secretary 

of Commerce make a finding on whether 

that petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, and promptly 

publish such finding in the Federal 

Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When 

it is found that substantial scientific or 

commercial information in a petition 

indicates the petitioned action may be 

warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’), 

we are required to promptly commence 

a review of the status of the species 

concerned during which we will 

conduct a comprehensive review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information. In such cases, we conclude 

the review with a finding as to whether, 

in fact, the petitioned action is 

warranted within 12 months of receipt 

of the petition. Because the finding at 

the 12-month stage is based on a more 

thorough review of the available 

information, as compared to the narrow 

scope of review at the 90-day stage, a 

‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not 

prejudge the outcome of the status 

review. 

Under the ESA, a listing 

determination may address a species, 

which is defined to also include 

subspecies and, for any vertebrate 

species, any DPS that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint 

policy issued by the Services clarifies 

the agencies’ interpretation of the 

phrase ‘‘distinct population segment’’ 

for the purposes of listing, delisting, and 

reclassifying a species under the ESA 

(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A 

species, subspecies, or DPS is 

‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if 

it is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range (ESA 

sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 

U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the 

ESA and our implementing regulations, 

we determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered based on any 

one or a combination of the following 

five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to address 

identified threats; (5) or any other 

natural or manmade factors affecting the 

species’ existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 

50 CFR 424.11(c)). 

ESA-implementing regulations issued 

jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 

424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ‘‘substantial 

scientific or commercial information’’ in 

the context of reviewing a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species as 

credible scientific or commercial 

information in support of the petition’s 

claims such that a reasonable person 

conducting an impartial scientific 

review would conclude that the action 

proposed in the petition may be 

warranted. Conclusions drawn in the 

petition without the support of credible 

scientific or commercial information 

will not be considered ‘‘substantial 

information.’’ In reaching the initial (90- 

day) finding on the petition, we will 

consider the information described in 

sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) 

(if applicable). 

Our determination as to whether the 

petition provides substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted will depend in part on the 

degree to which the petition includes 

the following types of information: (1) 

Current population status and trends 

and estimates of current population 

sizes and distributions, both in captivity 

and the wild, if available; (2) 

identification of the factors under 

section 4(a)(1) of the ESA that may 

affect the species and where these 

factors are acting upon the species; (3) 

whether and to what extent any or all 

of the factors alone or in combination 

identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 

may cause the species to be an 

endangered species or threatened 

species (i.e., the species is currently in 

danger of extinction or is likely to 

become so within the foreseeable 

future), and, if so, how high in 

magnitude and how imminent the 

threats to the species and its habitat are; 

(4) adequacy of regulatory protections 

and effectiveness of conservation 

activities by States as well as other 

parties, that have been initiated or that 

are ongoing, that may protect the 

species or its habitat; and (5) a 

complete, balanced representation of the 

relevant facts, including information 

that may contradict claims in the 

petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d). 

If the petitioner provides 

supplemental information before the 

initial finding is made and states that it 

is part of the petition, the new 

information, along with the previously 

submitted information, is treated as a 

new petition that supersedes the 

original petition, and the statutory 

timeframes will begin when such 

supplemental information is received. 

See 50 CFR 424.14(g). 

We may also consider information 

readily available at the time the 

determination is made. We are not 

required to consider any supporting 

materials cited by the petitioner if the 

petitioner does not provide electronic or 

hard copies, to the extent permitted by 

U.S. copyright law, or appropriate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices 34231 

excerpts or quotations from those 

materials (e.g., publications, maps, 

reports, letters from authorities). See 50 

CFR 424.14(c)(6). 

The ‘‘substantial scientific or 

commercial information’’ standard must 

be applied in light of any prior reviews 

or findings we have made on the listing 

status of the species that is the subject 

of the petition. Where we have already 

conducted a finding on, or review of, 

the listing status of that species 

(whether in response to a petition or on 

our own initiative), we will evaluate any 

petition received thereafter seeking to 

list, delist, or reclassify that species to 

determine whether a reasonable person 

conducting an impartial scientific 

review would conclude that the action 

proposed in the petition may be 

warranted despite the previous review 

or finding. Where the prior review 

resulted in a final agency action—such 

as a final listing determination, 90-day 

not-substantial finding, or 12-month 

not-warranted finding—a petition will 

generally not be considered to present 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

unless the petition provides new 

information or analysis not previously 

considered. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). 

At the 90-day finding stage, we do not 

conduct additional research, and we do 

not solicit information from parties 

outside the agency to help us in 

evaluating the petition. We will accept 

the petitioners’ sources and 

characterizations of the information 

presented if they appear to be based on 

accepted scientific principles, unless we 

have specific information in our files 

that indicates the petition’s information 

is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or 

otherwise irrelevant to the requested 

action. Information that is susceptible to 

more than one interpretation or that is 

contradicted by other available 

information will not be dismissed at the 

90-day finding stage, so long as it is 

reliable and a reasonable person 

conducting an impartial scientific 

review would conclude it supports the 

petitioners’ assertions. In other words, 

conclusive information indicating the 

species may meet the ESA’s 

requirements for listing is not required 

to make a positive 90-day finding. We 

will not conclude that a lack of specific 

information alone necessitates a 

negative 90-day finding if a reasonable 

person conducting an impartial 

scientific review would conclude that 

the unknown information itself suggests 

the species may be at risk of extinction 

presently or within the foreseeable 

future. 

To make a 90-day finding on a 

petition to list a species, we first 

evaluate whether the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the subject of the 

petition may constitute a ‘‘species’’ 

eligible for listing under the ESA. If so, 

we evaluate whether the information 

indicates that the species may face an 

extinction risk such that listing, 

delisting, or reclassification may be 

warranted; this may be indicated in 

information expressly discussing the 

species’ status and trends, or in 

information describing impacts and 

threats to the species. We evaluate 

whether the petition presents any 

information on specific demographic 

factors pertinent to evaluating 

extinction risk for the species (e.g., 

population abundance and trends, 

productivity, spatial structure, age 

structure, sex ratio, diversity, current 

and historical range, habitat integrity or 

fragmentation), and the potential 

contribution of identified demographic 

risks to extinction risk for the species. 

We then evaluate whether the petition 

presents information suggesting 

potential links between these 

demographic risks and the causative 

impacts and threats identified in section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA. 

Information presented on impacts or 

threats should be specific to the species 

and should reasonably suggest that one 

or more of these factors may be 

operative threats that act or have acted 

on the species to the point that it may 

warrant protection under the ESA. 

Broad statements about generalized 

threats to the species, or identification 

of factors that could negatively impact 

a species, do not constitute substantial 

information indicating that listing may 

be warranted. We look for information 

indicating that not only is the particular 

species exposed to a factor, but that the 

species may be responding in a negative 

fashion; then we assess the potential 

significance of that negative response. 

Many petitions identify risk 

classifications made by 

nongovernmental organizations, such as 

the International Union on the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the 

American Fisheries Society, or 

NatureServe, as evidence of extinction 

risk for a species. Risk classifications by 

other organizations or made under other 

Federal or state statutes may be 

informative, but such classification 

alone may not provide the rationale for 

a positive 90-day finding under the 

ESA. For example, as explained by 

NatureServe, their assessments of a 

species’ conservation status do ‘‘not 

constitute a recommendation by 

NatureServe for listing under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act’’ because 

NatureServe assessments ‘‘have 

different criteria, evidence 

requirements, purposes and taxonomic 

coverage than government lists of 

endangered and threatened species, and 

therefore these two types of lists should 

not be expected to coincide’’ (https://

explorer.natureserve.org/ 

AboutTheData/DataTypes/ 

ConservationStatusCategories). 

Additionally, species classifications 

under IUCN and the ESA are not 

equivalent; data standards, criteria used 

to evaluate species, and treatment of 

uncertainty are also not necessarily the 

same. Thus, when a petition cites such 

classifications, we will evaluate the 

source of information that the 

classification is based upon in light of 

the standards on extinction risk and 

impacts or threats discussed above. 

Analysis of Petition 

We have reviewed the petition, the 

literature cited in the petition, and other 

literature and information readily 

available in our files. In addition to 

reiterating information used to support 

the 2012 petition, the petitioners assert 

that a recent paper by Brennan et al. 

(2019) supports the conclusion that the 

harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are a 

discrete population and provides 

evidence of their significance to the 

broader taxon (the Pacific harbor seal 

subspecies; Phoca vitulina richardii), 

demonstrating eligibility of this group of 

seals for designation as a DPS. As 

discussed above, we evaluate any 

petition seeking to list a species in light 

of any prior reviews or findings we have 

already made on the species that is the 

subject of the petition. Because our 

previous review resulted in a final 

agency action finding the harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake did not constitute a 

species, subspecies, or DPS under the 

ESA, the petitioned action will 

generally not be considered to present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the action 

may be warranted unless the petition 

provides new information or a new 

analysis not previously considered. See 

50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii). Therefore, 

unless the petition provides credible 

new information, or identifies errors or 

provides a credible new analysis, we 

may find that the petition does not 

present substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may by warranted. Below, we address 

the main points made by the petitioners, 

including the purportedly new 

information based on Brennan et al. 

(2019), and identify where this 

information was considered in NMFS’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
34232 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices 

2016 DPS assessment and petition 

finding. 

According to the petitioners, Brennan 

et al. (2019) provides additional support 

to the DPS discreteness criterion by 

demonstrating that the seals are lifelong 

residents of the lake and rely mostly on 

lake-produced resources, even when 

spawning salmon are available (CBD 

2020, p.19). In our 2016 DPS assessment 

and petition finding, NMFS considered 

genetic analyses by Burns et al. (2013) 

indicating that the harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake are a small, isolated 

population: ‘‘Together, the mtDNA and 

nDNA results are consistent with a 

small, isolated population in Iliamna 

Lake. The substantial differentiation in 

allele frequencies between the lake and 

EBB [Eastern Bristol Bay] seals is 

consistent with isolation, i.e., lack of 

breeding dispersal into the lake’’ 

(Boveng et al., 2016, p. 24). This 

information led to our conclusion that 

based on the best available genetic 

information, the seals in Iliamna Lake 

meet the DPS discreteness criterion by 

being markedly separated from harbor 

seals in Bristol Bay (i.e., are born and 

live in the lake) and, by extension, the 

remainder of the taxon (81 FR 81082, 

November 17, 2016). The conclusion of 

Brennan et al. (2019) that the seals are 

lifelong residents in the lake is therefore 

not new information. In reference to the 

petitioner’s conclusion that the seals in 

the lake rely mostly on lake-produced 

resources, even when spawning salmon 

are available (CBD 2020, p.19), the 2016 

DPS assessment (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 

12—15) and the petition finding (81 FR 

81080, November 17, 2016) both 

considered data from scat samples 

(Hauser et al. 2008), and stomach 

contents and stable isotope analysis 

(Burns et al. 2013) that demonstrated 

the seals’ simultaneous utilization of 

both freshwater and salmonid species. 

Additionally, the teeth of harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake that were used for Brennan 

et al. (2019) isotope analyses were from 

a subset of the same seals included in 

the genetic analyses by Burns et al. 

(2013), which we considered when we 

concluded in our 2016 DPS assessment 

and finding that the seals in the lake are 

a discrete population (Boveng et al. 

2016, p. 24; 81 FR 81082, November 17, 

2016). Therefore, we conclude that the 

petition does not present new 

information on the isolated nature of the 

harbor seals in Iliamna Lake and the 

discreteness of the population. 

With respect to the DPS significance 

criterion, the petitioners assert that the 

harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are 

significant to the broader Pacific harbor 

seal taxon because of local adaptations 

resulting from their persistence in a 

unique ecological setting, including 

phenotypic (e.g., larger size, darker 

coloration, and finer pelage) and 

behavioral adaptations (e.g., use of 

under-ice spaces), and the development 

of a ‘‘unique foraging ecology’’ (CBD 

2020, p. 18–19). 

NMFS considered the evidence for 

phenotypic adaptations in both the 2016 

DPS assessment and petition finding. 

With respect to the larger size described 

by CBD, Boveng et al. (2016, p. 38) 

considered that: ‘‘In some species, 

variation in body size may indicate true 

adaptation to various ecological setting 

. . .’’ and ultimately concluded that for 

the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake: ‘‘. . . 

higher growth rates and/or larger 

average size could simply reflect greater 

availability of energy and nutrients, 

lower disease or parasite burdens, or 

other factors that would not confer any 

particular biological significance to the 

lake population.’’ For the observation 

that pelage color and texture differed 

from marine seals, Boveng et al. (2016, 

p. 38–39) considered local and 

traditional knowledge and observations 

from other freshwater seals and 

concluded: ‘‘. . . we were unable to 

identify any evidence that this is a 

result of anything other than an effect of 

fresh vs. salt water on seal coats; we 

found no evidence that this represents 

a heritable trait or adaptation that would 

convey significance.’’ The 2016 petition 

finding came to similar conclusions on 

all of the proposed phenotypic 

adaptations, indicating that the 

variances observed in taste, body size, 

and pelage traits of harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake are likely the result of 

seasonal diet, individual variation, and 

normal phenotypic plasticity rather than 

the result of physiological distinctions 

from harbor seals in nearby marine 

environments (81 FR 81079, November 

17, 2016). No new information is 

presented in the current petition that 

offers additional support for the 

existence of phenotypic adaptations 

attributable to the seals residing in 

Iliamna Lake. 

The petition asserts that the harbor 

seals in Iliamna Lake display novel use 

of under-ice spaces that contributes to 

the population’s persistence and 

survival and is therefore an adaptation 

that may be of importance to the taxon 

as a whole (CBD 2020, p. 18). In the 

2016 DPS assessment, Boveng et al. 

(2016, p. 39) observed that it ‘‘is not 

clear whether this behavior represents a 

true adaptation or is simply a response 

to conditions that would be exploited by 

other harbor seals if they encountered 

those same conditions’’ and that ‘‘[a] 

seal introduced to the lake from the 

marine population might well survive 

by learning the requisite behaviors from 

conspecifics in the lake population.’’ 

Based on the available information, they 

ultimately concluded: ‘‘Although the 

way that harbor seals in Iliamna Lake 

cope with the extensive ice cover in 

winter is unusual for the species, they 

do not seem to have adopted breeding, 

whelping, or pup rearing behaviors that 

would be unusual for the species’’ 

(Boveng et al. 2016, p. 39). Thus, the 

information presented on this 

behavioral adaptation in the current 

petition is not new. 

The petitioners also discuss what they 

assert is new information about a 

‘‘unique foraging ecology’’ among 

harbor seals in Iliamna Lake. As stated 

by CBD (2020, p. 1; adapted from 

Brennan et al. 2019): ‘‘. . . the foraging 

ecology of Iliamna Lake seals differs in 

several respects from other eastern 

North Pacific harbor seal populations. 

Iliamna Lake seals rely heavily on 

freshwater fish throughout the year, 

even during periods of abundant 

sockeye salmon. The seals also undergo 

a developmental shift whereby their use 

of salmon increases as they mature.’’ 

Brennan et al. (2019) further states that 

Iliamna seals ‘‘rely on lake resources 

and consistently display an ontogenetic 

shift from a diet composed principally 

of lake resources to one that exploits 

seasonally abundant salmon. Both 

imply locally adapted abilities to exploit 

a food web unlike that of any other P. 

v. richardii population across the 

Eastern Pacific.’’ 

The components of the ‘‘unique 

foraging ecology’’ scenario described by 

the petitioner, in which the harbor seals 

in Iliamna Lake rely heavily on 

freshwater prey even in the presence of 

seasonally available resources and shift 

later in life to greater reliance on 

exogenous (marine-produced) food in 

the form of returning sockeye salmon 

spawners, were considered in the 2016 

DPS assessment and petition finding. 

Results of diet studies from both Iliamna 

Lake and marine harbor seals were 

considered in our 2016 petition finding, 

leading to the conclusion that the seals 

in the lake opportunistically feed on 

both freshwater and marine prey, a 

pattern that is consistent with harbor 

seals foraging on a diversity of fish and 

invertebrate prey across their range (81 

FR 81080, November 17, 2016). The 

finding additionally considered 

information from a study by Burns et al. 

(2013) that provided further support 

that the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake 

consume freshwater species (e.g., 

threespine stickleback and Arctic 

grayling or lake whitefish) when 

salmonids are present and that the 

variety and types of prey items in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices 34233 

stomachs of the seals sampled further 

reflects the generally opportunistic 

feeding habitats of harbor seals and does 

not suggest use of unusual or unique 

prey based on their lake habitat (81 FR 

81083, November 17, 2016). 

Information addressing the second 

component of the ‘‘unique foraging 

ecology,’’ the increased reliance on 

seasonal salmon, was considered by the 

BRT in the 2016 DPS assessment: ‘‘The 

finding that harbor seals in Iliamna Lake 

predominantly fed on adult salmon 

during the summer period of high 

sockeye abundance corroborates 

previous studies (Brown and Mate 1983, 

Payne and Selzer 1989, Olesiuk 1993, 

Iverson et al. 1997) showing that harbor 

seal populations feed on seasonally 

abundant prey wherever they occur 

(Hauser et al. 2008)’’ (Boveng et al. 

2016, p. 21–22). The November 17, 2016 

petition finding also noted that the seals 

in Iliamna Lake had similar seasonal 

concentrations of salmon in their diets 

as harbor seals from other freshwater 

systems (81 FR 81080). 

The petitioner’s characterization of a 

‘‘unique foraging ecology’’ for harbor 

seals in Iliamna Lake does not constitute 

new information because NMFS 

previously considered these same 

foraging behaviors in the 2016 DPS 

assessment and petition finding, 

concluding that the foraging behaviors 

of these seals are consistent with the 

natural history of harbor seals, 

particularly the Pacific subspecies 

Phoca vitulina richardii, that is widely 

understood by harbor seal experts and 

well documented in the literature. The 

petition describes an age-related shift in 

diet, referred to as an ontogenetic shift, 

which is a widespread behavior among 

predator species that grow as they 

develop and are able to utilize resources 

differently as they increase in size (e.g., 

Werner and Gilliam 1984). Harbor seals 

in general are known to exhibit sizerelated prey selection, exploiting small, 

easy-to-catch prey until they attain the 

size and proficiency needed to catch 

and consume larger prey, such as adult 

salmonids. Therefore, the age-related 

shift in diet described by the petitioners 

for the harbor seals in Iliamna Lake 

(based on Brennan et al. 2019) merely 

highlights well-known behavior and, as 

a result, would not lead a reasonable 

person conducting an impartial 

scientific review to conclude that this 

population might be significant in 

relation to the broader taxon such that 

the action proposed in the petition may 

be warranted despite NMFS’s 2016 DPS 

assessment and petition finding. 

The petitioners further assert that in 

addition to being a local adaptation, the 

‘‘unique foraging ecology’’ also has 

evolutionary significance for the broader 

taxon: ‘‘The Iliamna Lake seal’s unique 

foraging ecology has significance for the 

evolutionary potential of the broader P. 

v. richardii taxon in a time of rapid 

change and increasing threats’’ (CBD 

2020, p. 20; based on Brennan et al. 

2019). In the 2016 DPS assessment, the 

Biological Review Team (BRT) 

evaluated if there was evidence that 

persistence in an unusual setting had 

resulted in adaptations (e.g., genetic or 

behavioral) in the harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake that may be of significance 

to the broader taxon. ‘‘Although there 

were genetic differences . . . those were 

more indicative of reduced genetic 

diversity in the lake population, rather 

than development of novel genes in 

response to the unusual habitat, and the 

genetic sampling remains rather 

inadequate for judging this’’ (Boveng et 

al. 2016, p. iv). In the 2016 petition 

finding, NMFS concluded there was no 

evidence suggesting the harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake had specific adaptations to 

their environment that would be 

beneficial to the taxon, and thus the 

persistence of the population in the lake 

is not significant to the subspecies P. v. 

richardii: (81 FR 81084, November 17, 

2016). As discussed above, the petition 

does not provide any new genetic 

sampling or any other new information 

not previously considered to support 

the assertion that seals in Iliamna Lake 

have a ‘‘unique foraging ecology.’’ The 

petition therefore presents no new 

evidence of adaptations in the harbor 

seals in Iliamna Lake that may support 

a finding that they are evolutionarily 

significant to the broader taxon, per the 

significance criterion of our DPS policy 

(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). 

In reference to the other significance 

criteria, the petition asserts that the 

harbor seals in Iliamna Lake are 

significant to the greater taxon because 

the loss of the Iliamna Lake population 

would result in a significant gap in the 

range of the taxon, and the genetic 

characteristics of the population differ 

markedly from marine harbor seals 

(CBD 2020, p. 21–22). The 2016 DPS 

assessment and the petition finding 

discussed that the taxon is broadly 

distributed, ranging from Alaska to the 

Baja Peninsula, and that the estimated 

number of seals in Iliamna Lake 

accounts for roughly 0.1 percent of the 

total population (Boveng et al. 2016, p. 

40; 81 FR 81084–85, November 17, 

2016). Additionally, Boveng et al. (2016, 

p. 40) stated: ‘‘Because Iliamna Lake is 

not a part of the continuous coastal 

range of the marine population of harbor 

seals, the loss of the Iliamna Lake 

segment could not produce a gap in that 

range, and therefore would not reduce 

or preclude dispersal between segments 

of the marine population.’’ 

With regard to the genetic 

characteristics of the population 

differing from marine harbor seals, the 

petitioners state that the harbor seals in 

Iliamna Lake have been there long 

enough for genetic novelty to arise and 

that the difference in behavior, 

morphology, ecology, and habitat 

between the seals in the lake and marine 

harbor seals provides evidence of 

genetic novelty (CBD 2020, 22–23). 

Taking the genetic evidence previously 

discussed into account, Boveng et al. 

(2016, p. 43) stated: ‘‘. . . it cannot be 

concluded with any confidence that this 

population has been isolated in the lake 

long enough for there to be a high 

likelihood of mutations at other genetic 

loci that could be selective and have 

adaptive function but not be outwardly 

apparent in the morphology or behavior 

of the seals. On the contrary, the 

evidence available thus far suggests that 

genetic diversity has been lost rather 

than gained since isolation of this 

population.’’ The petition finding came 

to a similar conclusion that the genetic 

characteristics (i.e., mtDNA haplotype) 

of the seals in Iliamna Lake are not 

markedly different from those found in 

Bristol Bay and therefore are not 

significant to the taxon as a whole (81 

FR 81085, November 17, 2016). Overall, 

the petition does not provide any new 

information regarding the significance 

criterion that would lead a reasonable 

person conducting an impartial 

scientific review to conclude that the 

petitioned action may be warranted 

despite NMFS’s the 2016 DPS 

assessment and petition finding. 

Petition Finding 

We thoroughly reviewed the 

information presented in the petition 

and found that it does not provide any 

new information that was not already 

considered in our 2016 DPS assessment 

and petition finding that the harbor 

seals in Iliamna Lake do not meet the 

criteria of a DPS, and therefore do not 

constitute an entity eligible for listing 

under the ESA. As such, we find that 

the petition does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references is 

available upon request from the 

Protected Resources Division of the 

NMFS Alaska Regional Office in Juneau, 

Alaska (see ADDRESSES). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
34234 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Notices 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: June 24, 2021. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13841 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Recording Assignments 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit 

the following information collection 

request to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review and clearance 

in accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the 

date of publication of this notice. The 

USPTO invites comment on this 

information collection renewal, which 

helps the USPTO assess the impact of 

its information collection requirements 

and minimize the public’s reporting 

burden. Public comments were 

previously requested via the Federal 

Register on April 16, 2021 during a 60- 

day comment period. This notice allows 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comments. 

Agency: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

Title: Recording Assignments. 

OMB Control Number: 0651–0027. 

Form Numbers: 

• PTO–1594 (Trademark Assignment 

Recordation Cover Sheet) 

• PTO–1595 (Patent Assignment 

Recordation Cover Sheet) 

Type of Review: Extension and 

revision of a currently approved 

information collection. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

649,880 respondents per year. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

649,880 responses per year. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

USPTO estimates that it will take the 

public approximately 30 minutes (.5 

hours) to gather the necessary 

information, create the document, and 

submit the completed item to the 

USPTO. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Burden Hours: 324,941 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour 

Cost Burden: $3,968,075. 

Needs and Uses: This collection of 

information is required by 35 U.S.C. 261 

and 262 for patents and 15 U.S.C. 1057 

and 1060 for trademarks. These statutes 

authorize the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) to record 

patent and trademark assignment 

documents, including transfers of 

properties (i.e., patents and trademarks), 

liens, licenses, assignments of interest, 

security interests, mergers, and 

explanations of transactions or other 

documents that record the transfer of 

ownership of a particular patent or 

trademark property from one party to 

another. Assignments are recorded for 

applications, patents, and trademark 

registrations. 

The USPTO administers these statutes 

through 37 CFR 2.146, 2.171, and 37 

CFR 3. These regulations permit the 

public, corporations, other federal 

agencies, and Government-owned or 

Government-controlled corporations to 

submit patent and trademark 

assignment documents and other 

documents related to title transfers to 

the USPTO to be recorded. In 

accordance with 37 CFR 3.54, the 

recording of an assignment document by 

the USPTO is an administrative action 

and not a determination of the validity 

of the document or of the effect that the 

document has on the title to an 

application, patent, or trademark. 

In order to record an assignment 

document, the respondent must submit 

an appropriate cover sheet along with 

copies of the assignment document to be 

recorded. Once the assignment 

documents are recorded, they are 

available for public inspection. The 

public uses these records to conduct 

ownership and chain-of-title searches. 

The public may view these records 

either at the USPTO Public Search 

Facility or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration, depending on 

the date they were recorded. The public 

may also search patent and trademark 

assignment information online through 

the USPTO website. The only 

exceptions are those documents that are 

sealed under secrecy orders according to 

37 CFR 3.58 or related to unpublished 

patent applications maintained in 

confidence under 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 

CFR 1.14. 

This information collection covers 

assignments submitted by paper and 

online through the use of the Electronic 

Patent Assignment System (EPAS) and 

the Electronic Trademark Assignment 

System (ETAS). The electronic systems 

allow customers to complete the 

required cover sheet information online 

using web-based forms and then attach 

the electronic assignment documents to 

be submitted for recordation. The 

electronic systems are available through 

the USPTO website at https://

epas.uspto.gov/ and https://

etas.uspto.gov/. 

Affected Public: Private sector; 

individuals or households. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. 

Follow the instructions to view 

Department of Commerce, USPTO 

information collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for this information 

collection should be submitted within 

30 days of the publication of this notice 

on the following website 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function and entering either the title of 

the information collection or the OMB 

Control Number 0651–0027. 

Further information can be obtained 

by: 

• Email: InformationCollection@

uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0027 

information request’’ in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Mail: Kimberly Hardy, Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450. 

Kimberly Hardy, 

Information Collections Officer, Office of the 

Chief Administrative Officer, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13809 Filed 6–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Nevada 

AGENCY: Office of Environmental 

Management, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open in-person/virtual 

hybrid meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an inperson/virtual hybrid meeting of the 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), 

Nevada. The Federal Advisory 

Committee Act requires that public 

notice of this meeting be announced in 

the Federal Register. 

DATES: Wednesday, July 21, 2021; 4:00 

p.m.–7:35 p.m. PT. 

The opportunity for oral public 

comment for those attending in-person 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1